Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Housing (South-East)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Mr. James Clappison: I am pleased to have this opportunity to introduce a subject that is of great interest to my constituents. We debated this matter yesterday, and I believe that my right hon. and hon. Friends were absolutely correct to raise it. I am sure that we will continue to address the issue in the House as it is vital to the south-east.
We must consider the immensity of new house building that is planned for the south-east. Contrary to what was said in some quarters yesterday, 1.1 million new homes are planned for the south-east. There is no point dismissing that figure out of hand as nonsense, as the Minister did yesterday, or trying to minimise its importance. Although it is not the new total arising from the panel's report—that figure is also substantial—we must consider the overall figure, which has immense implications for the south-east. The 1.1 million figure is equivalent to building five new cities the size of Southampton in the south-east.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: The figure that is equivalent to five new cities is the difference between Serplan's recommendations and those of the panel. The 1.1 million figure is really equivalent to 12 new cities the size of Southampton.

Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I refer anyone who wants to quibble with that figure to paragraph 7.35 of the panel's report, where it appears in black and white. Let us have no attempts to minimise the significance of that figure.
The increase is certainly important to my constituency and to the county of Hertfordshire. The Minister knows that I intend to explore in this debate the plan's detailed implications for Hertfordshire. I am pleased to welcome to the Chamber my right hon. and hon. Friends representing Hertfordshire constituencies, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), my hon. Friends the Members for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) and for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), as well as many other hon. Friends who represent constituencies throughout the south-east.
The panel recommends that Hertfordshire should provide 88,000 additional houses between 1996 and 2016—which is a building rate of 4,400 each year. Under

existing plans, Hertfordshire is expected to absorb 65,000 additional dwellings between 1991 and 2011, and some 19,000 houses were built between 1991 and 1996—so Hertfordshire is being asked to absorb no fewer than 107,000 new houses between 1991 and 2016. The panel's report suggests an increase of 42,000 new houses in addition to existing plans, so that is another new figure for Hertfordshire to absorb.
That is an immense figure, which is larger than any existing new town in Hertfordshire—and it is just the increase, not the total. The new settlement would be roughly equivalent to the size of Welwyn Garden City. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends from Hertfordshire agree that it will be particularly difficult for the county to absorb such new housing without affecting the environment by building in the green belt. Many existing settlements in Hertfordshire, and new towns that have been developed in the 20th century, do not have a large number of brownfield sites. The housing stock in Hertfordshire is relatively modern and not easy to convert, so few new houses will be delivered through conversion.
That is certainly true of my constituency of Hertsmere. As my constituents know only too well, it has proved extremely difficult to accommodate Hertsmere's existing new-build total of 4,600 houses without making incursions into the green belt. There is tremendous pressure on the green belt, most of which, thankfully, has been diverted. However, if there is to be further expansion on the scale envisaged, building on the green belt in Hertsmere is inevitable.
If divided between Hertfordshire local authorities on roughly the same basis as existing plans, the new plans would require Hertsmere to absorb several thousand—probably about 3,000—new houses. That is the equivalent of a new settlement the size of Radlett in my constituency—and it is only the new houses required by the report; never mind those required under existing plans. There is no way that such a development could be accommodated without building on the green fields that surround the communities in my constituency.
The green belt is especially valuable in Hertsmere, which is situated on the edge of London. Apart from existing settlements, almost all of my constituency is greenbelt land, and my constituents derive no comfort from the philosophy that has apparently been adopted in some quarters—even by the Government—that the loss of green belt in one place can be compensated for by the redesignation of greenbelt land somewhere else. The loss of the green belt in Hertsmere cannot be offset by the designation of more greenbelt land in another part of Hertfordshire, the south-east or even of the country.
That is a formula for devaluing the green belt and constantly shifting it further out. It is a rather bizarre philosophy. I say to the Minister that, if the same principle were applied to wildlife conservation, which is another responsibility of her Department, it would be a bit like saying, when one species becomes extinct, "Never mind; we can make up for that by adding another three species to the endangered list and, therefore, it is a triumph for conservation." The same principle applies to the green belt. We all know that, once the green belt has been lost, it is gone for good—that is concrete over green.
The panel's report contains worrying recommendations for the green belt, and I hope that they will be examined carefully in the House and elsewhere. It contains worrying


recommendations for constituencies, such as Hertsmere, where the green belt is not the result of national and international intrinsic designation in the way that areas of outstanding natural beauty are. Such areas appear to be the only type of green belt that the report is prepared to put beyond the reach of developers. The recommendations in the report seem to contemplate explicitly a re-evaluation of the green belt in places such as Hertsmere. We have heard it before, but the message from the report is clear: the green belt is up for grabs.
Such a message is, in equal measure, very bad news for the quality of life of residents and very bad news for the environment. We should not lose sight of the fragility of the environment in the south-eastern counties, which have already been placed under great pressure this century. I understand from Friends of the Earth that, on average over the past 50 years, one species has become extinct every two years. Increasing urbanisation and fragmentation of the countryside and wildlife habitats have greatly contributed to that loss. More greenfield development in the south-east will only accelerate the process and create more and more pressure.

Mr. Andrew Love: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clappison: I trust that the hon. Gentleman represents a south-east constituency, so I shall give way briefly.

Mr. Love: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. For his information, I represent a London constituency, although my borough in the north of London butts on to his local authority.
I listened with interest to the concern that the hon. Gentleman expressed about the green belt. No doubt, other Conservative Members will express similar concerns. Why was that concern not expressed in the years of the previous Government? In the final year of the Conservative Government, 1,200 hectares of green belt were designated for development, but Conservative Members expressed no concern at that time.

Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman may regret that intervention. He is going down the same course that was taken yesterday by the Minister for Housing and Planning, who made at some length the charge that the previous Government did not do enough for the green belt—Labour Members are nodding. We were criticised from pillar to post yesterday even though the previous Government, of whom I was proud to be a member, constantly sought to increase the amount of brownfield sites that were being developed.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Clappison: I shall give way to the Under-Secretary, but I have a further question. The Minister for Housing and Planning told us yesterday that the previous Government did not do enough. What did he say when he was Labour's Opposition spokesman in the last Parliament, when the Conservative Government designated 60 per cent. of housing to be on brownfield

sites? He told "Planning Week" that the proposal to develop 60 per cent. of new houses by 2016 on brownfield sites was a "recipe for disaster". He said that it would create residential densities
exceeding those during the 1960s and 1970s".
As the Minister is rising to the bait that was foolishly dangled by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), will she explain just what the then Opposition meant by that?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's questions in my winding-up speech. I want to ask him a question now. Does he accept that, in every year of the final 10 years of the previous Government's term of office, there was a net loss of the green belt?

Mr. Clappison: I have already made clear our philosophy on the green belt and how that differs from the Minister's. We sought to protect the green belt, and that is why we introduced the figures for conservation. The Minister is being foolish. Will she explain why the Labour party, when it was in opposition, opposed at every turn the previous Government's efforts to build more houses on brownfield sites?

Mr. Nigel Waterson: Is my hon. Friend aware that his fears were confirmed by a comment made as recently 29 April? The Minister for Housing and Planning said that
in certain cases where it is desirable in terms of urban extension and sustainability, there may be a case for reconsidering green-belt boundaries."—[Official Report, 29 April 1999; Vol. 330, c. 531.]

Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The posture that the Minister for Housing and Planning now takes brings to mind advice that I heard very early in my career in the House. I was told, "If you can't ride two horses at once, don't join the circus." The Minister is in danger of falling off his horses.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is quite unprecedented to build on 2,000 acres, as is happening in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley)? That will enable Stevenage to engulf the whole of that part of north Hertfordshire, potentially joining up Stevenage with Hitchin and with Letchworth. Hertfordshire does not want Stevenage to become Stetchworth or Hevenage. We want to preserve what Victoria Glendinning in her book on Hertfordshire described as the web of lanes with villages between. We do not want to lose that; we want to preserve it for the future.

Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; we need to look to the future. We are looking for two things from the Minister, and I hope that that is not asking too much in the circumstances. First, we want her to understand what the new housing will mean for the south-east and its residents and how important the issue is. Secondly, we want her to show a willingness to consider alternatives, so that we avoid the environmental catastrophe that is in the making. We have reached the point where we need to consider and debate the alternatives to something that carries profound implications for our constituents.
Those of us in the south-east do not want to see acre after acre of green fields disappearing under concrete year after year. That is the prospect before us and we all have a responsibility to begin a serious and constructive debate on how we can avoid that. To do so is essential for the residents of the south-east and the quality of their lives, to which the green belt is so important, and for the sake of the fragile environment in the south-east. Those of us who represent constituencies in Hertfordshire and the south-east owe nothing less to our constituents.

Mr. Bowen Wells: rose—

Madam Speaker: Has the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) finished his speech? That was not the peroration that I expected.

Mr. Clappison: I was giving way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells).

Mr. Wells: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I want the Minister to understand completely what the issue implies in my constituency. It implies the coalescence of Stansted airport, Bishop's Stortford, Sawbridgeworth and north Harlow to create a massive new city.

Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. His point adds weight to the submissions that I have already made.
The issue is of importance. The Minister has heard example after example from Conservative Members of the effects that such development will have on our constituencies. We are now looking for a constructive, serious and sensible response from the Government that shows that they are listening and considering the alternatives.

Mr. Syd Rapson: I did not want intervene in the debate, because it is fairly early and south-east Labour Members have not had time to consider their opposition to the plans. We shall get together and discuss the issues.
I apologise for the fact that I was not present for the debate yesterday, but I was incensed by a Friends of the Earth press release which claimed that Labour Members—it named me among them—representing marginal seats in the south-east are under pressure from the Whips to conform and shut up on this issue in case we lose the election. As you know, Madam Speaker, Portsmouth—the part of the country that I represent—is lovely, but it is renowned as the second most densely populated area in Europe.

Mr. David Chidgey: The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South—

Mr. Rapson: Portsmouth, North.

Mr. Chidgey: The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) is a neighbour of mine, and a hard-working one. If he casts his mind back to the 1960s, he will recall the horrendous proposal to create a Solent city joining Southampton and Portsmouth. Just about every sensible

person rejected it, and it was eventually thrown out. Does he share my concern that chapter 12 of the panel's report contains a section on Solent cities, with the very proposal that we threw out all those years ago? Does he share my concern about that, and will he join me in rejecting the proposal?

Mr. Rapson: Of course I share the concern about the possibility of any linking with Southampton, and the earlier remarks suggesting that the result would be a city five times the size of Southampton panicked me even more. I agree with the general concern, and our approach will be restrained and reasonable.
The city of Portsmouth is densely populated. I represent half the city, and there is little space to move. If I wanted to enter this debate to win the election, I would be saying, "Let my people free. We want the houses outside, in the greenbelt area." That would not be in line with Government policy, but for purely electioneering reasons I would be doing the opposite of what Friends of the Earth are claiming. I would be arguing for the right to expand and allow people to live in a reasonable environment.
It is not good for people to live in multi-storey flats, crammed together in council areas, cheek by jowl. The Opposition have not mentioned the alternative yet. If we do not build in the areas that are free to build in, not all the brownfield sites will be able to cope and it will be necessary to cram people into urban areas.
I am speaking in this debate merely to refute the completely false statement by Friends of the Earth that the Whips are restraining me. I do listen to the Whips and I do comply with most of what they say, but if I felt that I needed to change my mind, no Whip would be able to stop me—and my Whip is in the Chamber. I am too long in the tooth to be under pressure to that extent, but I am a loyal Member, and I make my own mind up. There should be another means of refuting the lies that have been perpetrated, printed and circulated.
Labour Members representing the south-east will get together to discuss their opposition to the plan. No doubt, as I am from Portsmouth, my views will differ from those of most of my hon. Friends. However, the debate will continue, and we shall come up with a concise plan. We shall discuss that with Ministers—instead of conducting megaphone diplomacy, as Opposition Members do, and shouting it from the rooftops purely for political gain.

Mr. Blunt: The hon. Gentleman is referring to the request that I initiated to all hon. Members representing the south-east to join together to invite the Government to reject the Crow panel's recommendations. Seventy of the 81 Members of Parliament representing the south-east who are not Labour Members agreed, but not one of the 36 Labour Members of Parliament for the south-east signed up to the letter. Surely the hon. Gentleman understands that the most effective way of putting pressure on the Government is for all Members of Parliament, regardless of party, to unite against this appalling threat to all our constituents in the south-east. Yet not one Labour Member chose to join other colleagues representing south-eastern constituencies. What conclusion are Friends of the Earth and electors in the south-east entitled to draw from that?

Mr. Rapson: I was incensed when I read in a newspaper that I had refused to sign the letter. I do not


even recall receiving an invitation. [Interruption.] Conservative Members probably got loads from Conservative central office, but I never received one. I did not know who Crispin Blunt was; I had to look it up. Madam Speaker, it is difficult to accept an invitation if you do not receive it. Proof of postage is not proof of delivery. I could be telling a fib, but I am not. I did not know that I was invited.
What would I have done, had I been invited? I can argue my case, and the people whom I represent want more housing. Conservative Members say, "We signed up to 'Building a World Class Region: an Economic Strategy for the South East', we want to expand our economic development base and we want new industries to come in—but we do not want any more houses!" The fear might be that if more people live in Conservative areas and county areas, more of them might vote, and more might vote Labour or against the Conservatives. They may do so in greater numbers when the new leader comes. Therefore, if the invitation had been received, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) probably would have had an acceptance from me, because I do not worry about going into the lamb's den—I would not call it the lion's den—and I am not frightened of meeting anyone.
The debate has enabled me—not to make any sensible suggestions; you did not expect that, Madam Speaker, because you have been here long enough to know better—to defend my position and to say that Portsmouth, North will be represented at sensible discussions with our Labour colleagues in the south-east to try to encourage our Government to see our view and not to go off half-cock, as the Opposition are doing, as usual.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: First I wish to resist, on behalf of Kent, this extraordinary expansion in the numbers of houses required, not least on ground of water provision. How on earth can the Government square their demands that the water companies cut prices—partly, in our area, by postponing the building of new reservoirs—while wishing upon our area a quantity of houses for which there is simply no water provision? That is hardly an example of joined-up government.
My main argument is that, however many houses we eventually have to accept for demographic reasons and so on, we cannot continue to rely on existing planning methods. At the moment, speculative builders are compelled by the planning laws to take each field as it falls vacant—or as they can get hold of it or take it out of their land bank—and bid for as many houses as possible, regardless of local preferences. It is very hard for councils to define the type of house—

Mr. Brian White: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rowe: I shall take one intervention. I am trying to be brief.

Mr. White: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why planning changes in the 1980s forced developers to take that route, and how the Conservative Government caused many developers to take such a view?

Mr. Rowe: As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, no doubt, I do not feel that we have ever, in this country, got

right the business of working out where houses should go and the type of houses that we should build. That is not something to be laid at the feet of any one Government. What is crystal clear is that the Government, who are continuously losing credibility as they try to blame everything on their predecessor, have no serious proposals to make on the issue.
Why, for example, when so many well-off retired people choose to spend their money on sheltered housing of the type that McCarthy and Stone or English Courtyard put up, and when, at the other end of the income range, there is such a huge demand for almshouses that one cannot get into them for love or money, does no one appear to feel that it is necessary to build the type of accommodation for less-well-off people that that demands? If it were properly provided, it would make tremendous savings in social services and other support services. If we want joined-up government, we must think across budgets.
I suspect—I have no idea whether it is true, but we should certainly try to find out—that many in single-parent households, which are partly to blame for the new increase in the number of households, would be a great deal happier in accommodation that has various shared facilities, such as a communal room in which to entertain, than being compelled to live in detached, tiny properties where they feel so isolated that they often get into further difficulties.
Builders sell what they sold the last time. The planning system creates artificial shortages, so there is virtually no choice for purchasers. They buy what is available, to which builders say, "We have sold all that we have built, so it must be what everybody wants." As a result, very little effort is made to break the mould, and many builders still sell houses like those their grandfathers built, except with modern appurtenances such as new kitchens.
I have played a role in the campaign for lifetime homes—the building of new houses that allow for level-entry access, enabling disabled, old or frail people easier use of their homes. I am very pleased to welcome the new planning regulations, which have gone some small way towards that.
Too many people live in absolutely foul homes. Local authorities and housing associations are simply not prepared to do them up because, on some unspecified day in the future, they are to be redeveloped. That means that, for a whole generation, some families live in the kind of house that we would not tolerate for ourselves. We have inspectors for pigsties and hen coops, but, as far as I can see, very ineffective inspection mechanisms for people's houses.
Such problems are partly because no Government—this Government have shown even less interest in doing so than their predecessors—will trust people with resources. The idea of giving them a small amount of money to try to improve their housing environment is tried occasionally in odd places, but when it is deemed a success it is never generalised because, in the end, local authorities do not trust people.
Why are we so totally unimaginative about the provision of granny accommodation? It is extremely difficult for people to extend their houses to provide for their elderly relatives—mainly because of planning laws. Why are we so reluctant, for example, to enable people to erect temporary houses? Modern mobile homes provide


admirable accommodation for various elderly people. I have seen such housing work extremely well, yet planning regulations are against it. That is fatal.
Last night, we heard the Government's extraordinary argument that more provision in the south-east will benefit the poor. When carried to the extreme, that suggests that the entire population of the United Kingdom could move to the south-east.

Mr. Roger Gale: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's aim of imposing 250,000 new homes on Kent, while, as he said, the Environment Agency is preventing the expansion of water provision and the water regulator is trying to prevent the extension of reservoirs, is absolute nonsense, and that the Government ought to think again?

Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend confirms the point with which I started: such an argument is as arid and ridiculous as one can imagine.
The Government's argument is exactly comparable to the Deputy Prime Minister's desire to punish motorists so that they will use public transport: that from a man who has never seen Victoria underground station in the rush hour because he drives around in his ministerial car.

Mr. Brian White: One of the things that I have found distressing since the publication of the Crow report is the lack of a rational debate about housing in the south-east. I found it disturbing that the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) said that the entire United Kingdom population could move to southern England. I seem to recall a former Tory Cabinet Minister saying, "Get on your bike and find a job! Come to the south-east." The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that.
Another argument seems to be that we can beat market forces. I am a little confused when I hear that deployed by Conservative Members, who argue at the same time that market forces cannot be beaten when it comes to jobs or old-style industries in which people could lose employment.

Mr. Blunt: I was under the distinct impression that the House did precisely that on Monday on behalf of a firm in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Mr. White: I have always argued that we should intervene in the market; it is the Conservative party that has always argued that we should not.
It is important that we get beyond the rhetoric of this debate and yesterday's, and get down to what we want to achieve in the south-east. Reference has been made to the south-east England development agency report. The south-east might be top of the economic activity league table in the United Kingdom, but it is not top of the table in Europe. Over a long period in the early 1990s, we were falling down the table quite rapidly. It is also important to consider the jobs and skills base in the south-east. Then, we may begin to consider housing.
My city has undergone similar growth to Reading, Wokingham and the Berkshire area over the past 30 years, but, because it was planned, and the development

corporation and private investors worked together, the city works. We do not have the congestion that is suffered around Reading, Wokingham and Newbury.
The question is one not of providing no more housing or of concreting over everything, but of what is appropriate.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Concrete cows?

Mr. White: I point out to my hon. Friend that the growth of Milton Keynes has resulted in the planting of 22 million trees. There is more green space in the city than in many urban areas. Having planned properly, such space has been built into the city.
If we are to have jobs and provide quality of life, we must have a more rational debate. Just to say no is a fair response, but would result in rising house prices in urban Portsmouth and any other town in the south-east. Demand would still be apparent, but supply scarce. It is a basic law of economics that prices would rise as a result. Conservative Members may not mind that, but I argue that that is how to cause social disruption and chaos. It would not solve the economic issues in the south-east, such as the creation of jobs. In some rural communities, particularly villages, simply saying no leads to people having to move away from their parents and grandparents, losing continuity with their families.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: I think that every Conservative Member accepts that there must be some additional housing; the question is how much. These plans are absurd and without precedent. The hon. Gentleman talked of green spaces in Milton Keynes, but does he not realise that the plans will close all green gaps between rural settlements in my constituency and those of many Members on both sides of the House? Local people will not accept that their concerns and wishes are being overridden by the Government—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman is making an intervention, not a speech.

Mr. White: I do not know the particulars of the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and I would not dream of commenting on it. However, a blanket decision to build no housing or to build everywhere is the wrong approach.
Before I entered the House, I was chair of the Local Government Association planning committee, and before that, the planning committee of the Association of District Councils. I had to discuss with Conservative Ministers planning guidance notes on behalf of local government. The concerns that have been expressed this morning were not the concerns that we heard from Ministers at that time.
In Castlethorpe, a village in my constituency, the building of an extra dozen houses kept open the local school, pub and shop because there was sufficient economic activity in the village for those facilities to keep going. If you are saying that there should have been no development in that village—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair does not say anything in these debates.

Mr. White: My apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the Opposition are saying that there should be no


development, the village would have lost its pub, shop and school, and we would have heard from the Opposition an outcry about the rural economy such as we heard last week. That is a direct result of their blinkered policy and knee-jerk reaction.

Mr. Gale: What we are saying is that the Government seek to foist 250,000 new homes on Kent, without taking into account the fact that the people living in those homes will require water, sewerage, education and so on. When will the Government join up and bring together the Department for Education and Employment, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and other relevant Departments to make provision before the proposals are put through Parliament?

Mr. White: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that there should be proper planning provision for water, schools and infrastructure, I entirely agree. However, if he is saying that the Serplan figures as presented were not a political fix by the Tory-run county councils in the south-east of England going against their officers' advice and coming to a political conclusion before presenting that report to Government, he is not living in the real world. That is exactly what happened under Serplan. It was a political fix and an attempt by Tory councils in the south-east of England to embarrass the Government. Professor Crow did a good job in exposing the fact that Serplan deliberately distorted the figures in an attempt to provoke an argument with the Government.

Mr. Hoyle: Does my hon. Friend agree that before any planning application and during the discussions, one of the bodies consulted is the water authority, which is asked whether it can provide enough water and deal with the sewage for any proposed development? That is the way in which the planning system was set up by the previous Government. If the Opposition now want the water companies to be taken back into public hands, I support that, but the companies' rules clearly state that they must be notified of planning applications.

Mr. White: My hon. Friend makes an important point, contrasting the policies of the previous Conservative Government with the present knee-jerk reaction of the Conservatives in opposition.
In my city there are 750 families in temporary accommodation. Opposition Members say that we should not be dealing with that problem, but they are wrong. In respect of Milton Keynes—I am not speaking of the south-east generally—Professor Crow's report is balanced and offers sensible suggestions regarding the way forward for the Milton Keynes-Bedford triangle.
One of the Opposition's arguments is that the green belt is sacrosanct and should not change. I remind hon. Gentlemen that it was a Labour Government who created the green belt in 1947, opposed by some of the predecessors of the current Opposition. If hon. Gentlemen think that everything in the green belt is a green field, they obviously do not know what the green belt looks like in some areas. If swapping parts of the green belt is beneficial for the local community, and if the local community wants to do so, as has been done—to be fair to the previous Government, they allowed that in certain circumstances—that is a reasonable position.
The fact that there will be more green belt as a result of the changes in Stevenage is a positive development. I would argue that the green belt ought to be extended. There is no green belt round my city, but the concept of linear parks has been devised, which did more than a green belt would have done. The debate must be conducted on a more rational basis. Economic issues should be at the heart of the debate and should be taken more seriously than has been the case hitherto.
The Opposition imply that the Government have already reached a decision on the Crow report. All that has happened is that Tory counties dominating Serplan have put forward proposals, an inspector has sat in public, heard evidence and made a recommendation to the Government, to which they have yet to respond. It is hardly a case of the Government telling councils what to do. The Opposition suggest that the Government will accept every dot and comma in the report, but I should be surprised if they did.
May I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that when the Government consider the Crow report as it relates to Milton Keynes, they view it as a sensible way forward? Growth will take place because market forces dictate that—I find it strange that Opposition Members think that they can defeat market forces—and if market forces dictate that growth will occur, it should be sustainable, planned and locally accountable. I hope that the Minister will apply that in respect of Milton Keynes.

Mr. Peter Lilley: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on initiating the debate. For the sake of brevity, may I say that I entirely endorse his analysis of the Crow report.
We debated the issue yesterday, and we return to it today. I hope that that sends a clear message to the Government that we will not let the matter drop. I make no apology for returning to it yet again, as it is supremely important to my constituency since the unprecedented approval by the Government for the building of 10,000 houses in the green belt west of Stevenage in my constituency.
That decision will be devastating locally for the environment, and for transport, the resources and facilities of our area, but it is not just an issue of local importance. It affects not just Hitchin or Hertfordshire. It affects the entire country, wherever there is greenbelt land. Planning proceeds by precedent. If the decision is allowed to go ahead, it will be cited as a precedent elsewhere.
Throughout my 16 years in Parliament, there has been pressure on the green belt in the area that I represent. I have appeared at public inquiries whenever proposals have come forward, and we have seen every one off. Not a single acre has been lost to house building from greenbelt land in my area. However, this decision creates the biggest-ever precedent of which I am aware for building in the green belt. By approving it, the Deputy Prime Minister has driven a coach and horses—perhaps I should say two Jags and all their horsepower—through the sanctity of the green belt. Unless his decision is reversed or restricted, it will be quoted in every constituency where there is greenbelt land.
I want to warn hon. Members that those pressures will be accentuated because of the Crow report. The Government must reject it, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere.

Mr. White: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lilley: I will give way to the soon-to-depart Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White). His speech will not go down well with people in his area.

Mr. White: If my getting here was unlikely, my return will disappoint the right hon. Gentleman even more. He said that the Government have already made a decision on the report and then he asked them to reject it. When did the Government agree the Crow report?

Mr. Lilley: I was referring to the Government's approval of a planning decision for 10,000 houses on greenbelt land in my constituency.
The Government should reject the Crow report. It is strange that they refused to do so yesterday, and we shall see whether they refuse to do so today. The report is contrary to their policy of rejecting the predict-and-provide approach. It is strange that they do not reject it, because it conflicts with Lord Rogers's urban task force, which the Government set up, and with the will of the vast majority of people.
When I first took the Deputy Prime Minister to task for approving the decision to build up to 10,000 houses in my constituency, he justified his approval by alleging that there was local democratic support. That was nonsense. It had been steamrollered through the county council by the Lib-Lab coalition, which had an overall majority of one. The council knew that it could not count on that majority because some of its members, rightly, were prepared to rebel on the issue. The standing orders were changed and the matter was put through a sub-committee where there was a majority. The council undemocratically refused to let the matter come before the full council. That decision was steamrollered through with the approval of only 14 out of 72 members on the council in Hertfordshire. It was never democratic.
Since the Deputy Prime Minister cited democracy as his reason for giving approval, the Conservatives have regained control of Hertfordshire, not least because of that issue. The Conservatives have also regained control of North Hertfordshire district council by a thumping majority, also because of that issue.
There is massive public disapproval of building on the green belt. There is massive public concern about the Crow report. The Government should reject it, and do so rapidly. They should at least return to the already very high projections that were being worked on before. If they do not, they will find that many Labour Members, who are not present today, who refused to sign the letter asking the Government to reject the Crow report, will not be back here after the next election.

Mr. Mark Oaten: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on securing this important debate. When the news of the Crow report was released in Hampshire, there was genuine shock and concern among my

constituents and constituencies across the entire Hampshire region. It was one of the few times since I became a Member of Parliament that my telephone began to ring quickly after an announcement. It is because of that shock and concern that I am disappointed with the quality of the debate last night and this morning. We appear to be listening to a history lesson on party politics about who said what and how much greenbelt or brownbelt land has been built on. Some speeches have tried to blame a certain party for this development.
I can say categorically that my constituents and others in the south-east do not want this to be turned into a cheap party political issue. They want to see a way forward to solve some of the difficulties that we all face in our areas as Members of Parliament.

Mr. Rapson: I want to thank the Gentleman because, when this issue broke, he was the first person to contact me. I appreciated that because he wanted to talk constructively about the way ahead. The hon. Gentleman is trying to keep this out of the political arena and work constructively.

Mr. Oaten: Hon. Members may laugh, but, among Hampshire Members, there has been cross-party support, Tory and Labour. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) has responded to a letter from me to take part in this debate. I appreciate the fact that, across Hampshire, we have managed to keep politics out of this issue. That must be the way forward if we are to serve our constituents properly.
Hampshire Members are concerned that, over a couple of years, Hampshire has gone through a process of battling with the difficult figures that have been imposed on us. We have just agreed on a figure of 56,000 homes for the Hampshire area. That took considerable manipulation of public opinion. It was difficult to persuade people that that figure could be accepted—most of the community were, like me, against it. Therefore, one can imagine the horror when, having agreed on 56,000, we are told one week later that the figure for Hampshire should be 169,000, making it the highest figure of all the south-east counties.

Mr. Love: Does the hon. Gentleman reject the collective nimbyism of the Conservative party? If so, does he accept, as the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs does, the robustness of the figures showing the need for additional housing over the next 20 years? Does he also accept that if we do not build that housing, people will go without?

Mr. Oaten: People need housing in the south-east and I do not take a nimby approach, but I am concerned about the public's confusion.
We hear some encouraging noises from the Government. We hear that they do not want to build on greenfield land, that they want to protect the countryside, reduce traffic growth, encourage bottom-up planning and address the difference of the balance of growth between the regions. They also want to try to end the policy of predict and provide. The public hear those announcements and are encouraged, but the report from Professor Crow contradicts all that. It is no wonder that the public feel confused and let down by their politicians.
The Government's response to the report presents the Deputy Prime Minister with the first opportunity to demonstrate that he means some of the rhetoric. I hope that, when the Government respond—perhaps the Minister will do so this morning—they will show that the language that they have used will be matched by their response to the document.
The biggest area in which the Crow report is out of sync with moving Government opinion is on the whole issue of predict and provide. We know that predict and provide is a hit-and-miss approach to housing. We know that if the figures are wrong and there is building on greenfield land, it can no longer go back to being greenfield land. It is a dangerous approach, which we reject. However, some individuals argue that such housing would be a good thing for the south-east. We are seeing the development of some organisations that are arguing that the south-east should be the powerhouse of Europe, that it should be in the top 10 regions of Europe and that we should be moving forward and making it dynamic region.
I do not want the south-east to be one of the top 10 regions in Europe if the price for that is ruining our countryside, clogging up our roads even more and making our schools too full. That is not the approach we want. Of course we want economic advantages in the south-east, but quality of life is a much more important principle than some of the economic gains. If the price of that is building new houses, I reject that approach.
We should also be looking at a balance of economic gain among the regions. Pushing the south-east forward in the way that is being suggested by some of the housing figures and documents I have read is not the right way forward. We need to balance the north-south divide. I am sure that hon. Members who represent seats in the midlands and the north would welcome some urban regeneration and progress in their areas.
Even if we believed that we needed these housing numbers in the future, in reality, what we would get would not meet demand. In the future, we will need more homes for single and elderly people. A great deal of demographic evidence suggests that that is correct. The Crow report is a green light to developers to build four and five-bedroom executive homes on greenfield sites with no infrastructure next to them. That is not where our new homes and our future population need to be.
In the Whiteley area of my constituency, I have seen what can go wrong when greenfield sites are suddenly covered with such executive homes. There is a development of nice homes in Whiteley, but no community. There are no postboxes or telephone boxes, no bus routes through the development and no community centre. The local schools cannot take the children who live in that development, and there is pressure on the GPs in the area. There is disquiet about traffic problems, because there is chaos day in, day out from traffic trying to get into the area. Those problems were caused because the planning was ill thought through. Homes are built on green fields without the infrastructure being put in place.

Mr. White: One problem is that the type of housing to be built is not a planning consideration. Social housing

should be a planning consideration, so that the authority can dictate what type of housing should be built in a particular area.

Mr. Oaten: The hon. Gentleman is right. We should find ways of building more affordable homes in the south-east.
If we are to avoid the Whiteleys and the big greenfield developments that do not work, we must provide more affordable housing. We should build more housing in villages, so that our youngsters can stay there. We need housing to ensure that young professional couples on fairly small salaries can afford to live in those communities. In Winchester, the price of housing is phenomenal and out of all proportion. We must have much more affordable housing in the future.
Will the Minister please consider the report carefully? This is not a party political issue: it is about what the south-east needs. The report will not deliver the homes that we need in the south-east. We need a more creative solution, and I hope that the Government will consider that carefully.

Mr. Roger Gale: I should like to follow the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) by giving practical examples of where the planning process is going wrong and where it will go further wrong. In the villages of Beltinge and Broomfield in Herne Bay in my constituency, planning applications have been submitted for hundreds of houses. No consideration has properly been given to the fact that there is insufficient water and primary health care provision, that the junior schools in Herne Bay are bursting at the seams, and that the secondary school is over-subscribed and the children have to travel out of the town past their nearest school to another school to obtain their education.
The Environment Agency, for its own ludicrous reasons, is trying to prevent Mid Kent Water from extending a reservoir. The water regulator, under pressure from the Government, is trying to cut the investment by Mid Kent Water in capital projects by a massive 40 per cent. Southern Water, which is responsible for the disposal of sewage in the area, is also having its capital expenditure cut. The Government have cut their contribution to Kent county council's funds, leaving less money for investment in education, while the council is having to find £5 million to subsidise asylum seekers under a programme that the Government have failed to get to grips with. That is not joined-up government.
Crow proposes to impose 250,000 homes on the county of Kent with no consideration of how water, sewage services, medical care or education will be provided. Unless and until this joined-up Government can do joined-up writing and read joined-up writing, this project will be an absolute disaster. I urge the Government to review and reject the Crow report.
It was said earlier that the previous Government had rigged Serplan to reduce the number of houses. Let me tell the Minister and her Back-Bench colleagues that I and others fought furiously the then Minister, our former colleague Robert Jones, when he tried to impose even those figures on the south-east. The current proposal is not a step too far, it is a mile and a half too far and it cannot go ahead.

Mr. Simon Burns: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) that the proposal for 1.1 million new houses in the south-east over the next 20 years, including 150,000 extra houses under the latest plans in my county of Essex, is environmental vandalism and is unacceptable because of the strains that it would place on the infrastructure. Soulless communities would emerge from such a mass of housing in my county.
If these plans were to go ahead, Essex would have to provide more than 150,000 extra homes. That is 7,500 extra homes a year, which is equivalent to 62 square miles of land in Essex. Under the existing structure plan for 1996–2011, Essex was expecting to build 78,600 new homes. Under the current proposals, as upgraded by the Crow report, there would be a 43 per cent. increase in those projections. Similarly, under the structure plan proposals, 12,000 houses were expected to be built on greenfield sites. Under the latest projections, 46,000 houses would concrete over greenfield sites in Essex.
Mid-Essex would be expected to take a disproportionate amount of the housing for the county. Villages such as Boreham, which is about four miles from the outskirts of Chelmsford, would become a suburb of Chelmsford because of the 11,000 homes that would be built in the north-east of the town. The whole of the A12 corridor would have to be built on to meet those targets. That is wrong and unacceptable, and the infrastructure could not cope. Soulless new housing estates would be built, and that would lead to acts of vandalism through mindless boredom because of the sheer numbers. I urge the Government to reject the report.

Mr. Richard Page: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on securing a debate on this subject. His constituency marches with mine. It is not possible to read speeches into the record, but I should like Hansard to repeat my hon. Friend's speech under my name, deleting Hertsmere and replacing it with South-West Hertfordshire, because I have the same problems as he has. The idea of covering 28 sq km of Hertfordshire in concrete is unacceptable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) sent a good letter to two-Jags, our Deputy Prime Minister, complaining about what was happening under Serplan and Crow. Some Liberal Democrats signed it, because they know a good thing when they see it. Despite the brave words of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson), no Labour Member signed it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) has explained the change of balance and control in Hertfordshire. The Liberal Democrats supported the Labour party in the county. In Hemel Hempstead, which was an impossible seat for the Conservatives to win as it was a strong Labour seat, this was the No. 1 issue and a Conservative councillor was elected. In a perverse way, I welcome these proposals, because the Labour gains in the general election will melt like snow at the next election.
I can read into the record the comments made by practically everyone connected with planning. They condemn what is going on, except the House-Builders

Federation, which of course is in favour of it. The chairman of the environment committee in my council, Jane Pitman, said:
I am absolutely stunned. The figure is an early Christmas present to the developers.
I have had letters from my two councils warmly praising the stand that we are taking against these developments.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) made the point that there is no provision for water, schools, health care and sewerage. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) is wrong. The water companies have a legal obligation to supply water to houses, and they cannot block that.
I detect a political spin. The Government produced figures to Serplan from a smoke-filled room and there was a huge outcry. What have they done? They have got a tame professor and an appointed panel, and have come up with an even larger figure. In the fullness of time, the Government will reject Crow and everyone will say, "What a reasonable, kind Government to go back to Serplan"—go back to a plan that will create a new town next to my right hon. Friend's constituency.
I do not believe that these proposals will wash. They will not work. It will mean electoral gains for us, but will be a disaster for South-West Hertfordshire.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on securing the debate. He was, as always, assiduous in presenting the concerns of his constituents. I also welcome the Minister to her relatively new job. This is her second outing on the subject of the debate in as many days, and I assure her that it will not be her last.
I note in passing that the Minister does not have the benefit of the presence of the Minister for Housing and Planning beside her today. No doubt he is tied up, if not with affairs of state, at least with the campaign of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) for the post of mayor of London.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Next year, draft regional planning guidance will be published, and then there will be a period of consultation. Would it not be sensible if, during that period, the new Minister visited the counties concerned as part of the consultation, and heard at first hand the concerns of local people about the impact of the proposals on counties such as Oxfordshire?

Mr. Waterson: I agree. I think that Ministers, including the Deputy Prime Minister, should make their own contribution to breaking down the north-south divide in this regard.
One of the casualties of the reshuffle in which the Minister was promoted was the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). Like the Deputy Prime Minister, Conservative Members regret his passing. Now there was a Minister who knew all about development on the green belt.
Yesterday, the Minister ploughed through her script, refusing to take interventions and ducking many of the questions raised by my hon. Friends. Today, as luck would have it, she has the opportunity to put that right. Yesterday, she spent an inordinate amount of time


attacking the record of previous Conservative Governments; I hope that, today, she will tell us about the future.
When it comes to the environment, Labour Members say one thing and do another. They used reassuring words before the election about protecting our environment, but, in office, the reality is very different. Halfway through this Parliament, it is plain for all to see that two key policies are failing: Labour's regional policy, and its policy to encourage more new development on recycled or brownfield land.
Labour set up an urban task force chaired by the eminent Lord Rogers, which reported with some 105 recommendations. At the last count, the Government had implemented only one, and that only on a pilot basis. Lord Rogers also had some uncomfortable things to say about the current direction of Government policy. The task force concluded that the Government had no prospect of achieving even their own target of 60 per cent. new development on brownfield sites on the basis of existing policies. That, it thought, could be achieved only through a shift of the regional balance of wealth and opportunity to regenerate the towns and cities of the north and the midlands. This is the first recorded example of a Government being sunk by its own task force.
Professor Crow's report, of which we have heard a great deal this morning, makes it clear that the target for new housing on recycled land is to be reduced from 60 to 50 per cent.
This is also a tale of two Britains. It is, to say the least, ironic that, last week, the eight regional developments agencies delivered their 10-year blueprints to the Deputy Prime Minister against a background of growing turmoil over the Government's plans for massive new house building in the south-east and elsewhere. In my so-called region of the south-east, the RDA has come up with a range of proposals to make the south-east "a world-class region" and one of the top 10 in Europe. No doubt that will be welcomed in the pockets of relative lack of prosperity in the south-east, but what does it mean for parts of the south-east that are already in danger of economic overheating, let alone those in less fortunate parts of the country which were hoping that the Government's policies would help them to catch up? Whatever happened to joined-up government?
Now, in very short order, we have seen two dramatic developments: the publication of Professor Crow's panel report, and the leaked report from the Government's performance and innovation unit. The latter is very worrying, because it advocates a loosening of planning controls on development on farm land, stating that
the presumption within national policy against development of best and most versatile land should be removed".
We have heard a great deal about the conclusions of the Crow panel about the alleged need for 1.1 million more homes in the south-east before 2016.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Crow proposals are wholly unrealistic? The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) articulated the concerns of all of us who represent Hampshire constituencies. During the 1990s, an average of 5,800 dwellings a year have been built in Hampshire,

including the cities of Portsmouth and Southampton, and, if the Crow requirements are to be met, 8,500 will need to be built per annum. That is simply not attainable.

Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The suggestion that there should be a 64 per cent. increase in the south-east over and above even the projections of Serplan is quite barmy—the equivalent, as we have heard, of five cities the size of Southampton. As the Council for the Protection of Rural England has pointed out, the Crow report puts more than 430 sq km of rural land—an area larger than the Isle of Wight—under the threat of urban sprawl.

Mr. Bob Russell: The Conservative Opposition have spoken against housing on greenfield sites. Do the same arguments apply to commercial development on such sites?

Mr. Waterson: There are major considerations relating to new commercial development on greenfield sites, but this debate is primarily about housing.
The debate casts a penetrating spotlight on the accelerating migration from north to south in our country. As I have said, this is a tale of two Britains with an ever-widening gulf between them, and of Ministers who are apparently unwilling or powerless to reverse the trend—but reverse it we must, unless countless acres of green field are to be concreted over for ever. That is why we are proposing a different planning regime in areas that are already prosperous, and whose infrastructure is under pressure. The aim is to relieve pressure on those areas, while encouraging regeneration and economic development in other areas so that the brightest and the best will not move south, but will stay where they are to make their own contribution to that regeneration and development.
Here we have two flagship Government policies that are in crisis—that are clearly failing. The results are potentially catastrophic. We have heard today of the likely effects on a number of constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere described the problems faced by Hertfordshire, and many others representing constituencies in the area have made similar points. We have also heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and from South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page), and we heard a powerful speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who mentioned the 10,000 new homes planned for his area.
My hon. Friends the Members for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) and for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) both asked where these new homes are supposed to go. How is an infrastructure that is often already strained to bursting point supposed to cope? What is to be done about roads, schools, hospitals and natural resources such as water? The Government's policy makes a mockery of sustainable development.
Nor are these concerns limited to Conservative Members. A letter signed by nearly 70 Members representing constituencies in the south-east, organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and delivered to the Deputy Prime Minister last Friday, bears the signatures of Liberal Democrats as well as Conservatives. Sadly, it does not bear the name of a single


Labour Member. Do Labour Members not care about the likely effects on their constituents in areas such as Crawley and Milton Keynes, or are they too cowed by their Whips?
Some, however, are made of sterner stuff—for instance, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who, referring to plans to build more housing near Newcastle, said in February last year:
I put it to my right hon. Friend that that sort of madness is deeply ingrained and must be stopped rather than merely discouraged."—[Official Report, 3 February 1998; Vol. 305, c. 826.]
Let us hope that the hon. Gentleman's translation to being a Minister in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will bring some sense to bear on the Government's policies.
In yesterday's debate, the Minister for Housing and Planning was pressed more than once to disown the panel's report. He refused. Indeed, he rather ominously went on to claim that densities in the south-east were the lowest in the country. In an earlier debate, he accepted that there would be more encroachment on to the green belt. Are Ministers preparing a way for the massive new development foreshadowed by the report? Why are Ministers so determined not to disown it? Why can they not welcome the common-sense approach advocated by us—in short, a common-sense revolution in planning?
We say that decisions on local planning should be made in and by local communities that are affected by those decisions, with minimum interference from Ministers and civil servants. The Government say that they no longer believe in predict and provide, but they cling to housing figures that are being dictated from on high.
It comes to this. The evidence is overwhelming. The Government seem prepared to preside over a bricks-and-mortar invasion of the south-east to allow the concreting-over of vast swathes of our countryside, destroying some ancient and picturesque communities. How can we reach any other conclusion when Ministers refuse to disown the panel report's conclusions? I call on the Minister to come clean on the Government's attitude to the report and to take the opportunity to declare that it is wrong-headed, dangerous and wholly unacceptable in a democratic society. Will she grasp that opportunity now?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on his choice of subject for the Adjournment debate. I listened carefully to the tone of his speech. It is sad that he was badly let down by the speech of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, which cut across a reasonable effort—which I was prepared to try to rise to—to begin to have a sensible and constructive debate about the issue.
Housing in the south-east has been, and will remain for some time, a source of intense interest. That is absolutely right. People are worried about the effects of unconstrained house building. Several Members have voiced their concerns about the effects that it might have on different communities.
The hon. Member for Hertsmere made a plea that, in my response, I would demonstrate an understanding of those concerns and a willingness to approach the matter with full seriousness before the Government give their response. I am happy to give him those two assurances, but I make a plea to Opposition Members: they should recognise that serious and extensive consideration of the complex issues involved is needed, and that they should not resort to knee-jerk reactions, in the way that many have.

Mr. Clappison: I am grateful to the Minister for saying that she is listening, but I also asked her to look at the alternatives. I specifically invited her to look at the common-sense alternatives that have been suggested by the Conservative Front-Bench team. May I gently give her the following warning? If the Government do not do that, they will face a wave of anger in the south-east that is even bigger than the wave of anger coming from the rural communities.

Ms Hughes: We will consider what the panel report says and say what we think about it. That will include other options.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Hughes: No. I will make a little progress and then I will be pleased to give way.
I outline why my plea for serious consideration of the issues is important. The debate on housing in the south-east illustrates the potential conflicts that we all seek to resolve. The south-east needs jobs. It needs to be competitive in the international economy. I am surprised to hear that the Liberal Democrats do not want the south-east to be among the top 10 European regions. We should not pull down the shutters and tell firms to go elsewhere. The south-east supports London—

Mr. Oaten: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Hughes: I will carry on for a moment and make my point. The hon. Gentleman has had his opportunity.
The south-east supports London, one of the few world cities of immense financial importance. The combined pull of London and the south-east ensures that the United Kingdom stays attractive to international investors. It is all in the melting pot in the debate on the south-east—jobs, housing, regional imbalances, international competitive, the strength of the UK economy. It is a big picture.
Therefore, we need to continue to attract high-value enterprises and employment to the region. Employees will need decent homes to live in. Employers need to know that they will be able to attract good-quality workers who can live in the area in which they work. Although we will increasingly support efforts to bring the economic attractiveness and capacity of other regions up to those of


the south-east, we must not allow ourselves to constrain the south-east to the extent that it fails to realise its economic potential for the UK as a whole.

Mr. Oaten: rose—

Mr. Howarth: rose—

Ms Hughes: I give way initially to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten).

Mr. Oaten: I make it clear that the Liberal Democrats of course support economic vibrancy in the south-east, but not if the price is housing on green fields, clogged-up roads and infrastructure that cannot cope with that development.

Ms Hughes: The record will show that the hon. Gentleman said that, if the price was too high, he would not want the south-east to be one of the top 10 European regions. That is a serious matter for the Liberal Democrats.

Mr. Howarth: The Minister has accused Opposition Members, and I include the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), of a knee-jerk reaction. That is not so. The Serplan proposals have been debated for years. There has been careful consideration of all the factors that she has mentioned and now Professor Crow has come along and thrown the whole thing into turmoil—the whole south-east is in turmoil as a result of that man. It is incumbent on the Government to say that they will swiftly consider—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That intervention is far too long.

Ms Hughes: I will deal with that matter when I come to it in my speech.
We need to recognise that people in the south-east will also suffer if we do not provide housing. House prices will rise and poorer members of communities will be squeezed out. The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) alluded to the social problems that can occur.
At the same time, we are conscious of the need to safeguard and enhance the environment of the region. Environmental quality is an important attractor in its own right. There is superb countryside. We want to retain that landscape and biodiversity.
Previous Labour Governments developed the planning system precisely to enable the countryside to be protected and to get away from sprawl. Let us contrast that planned approach with the years of Tory failure. I will not go into that in detail again. We rehearsed it last night and Opposition Members' interventions have taken my time, but they know the record and it stands for anyone to see.
The problem is that, having built inertia to sprawl and car dependence, the Opposition and their local authority members do not like the consequences. The tragedy is that they are trying, Canute like, to stop the drift from towns, hoping that attempting to stop housing developments in the face of housing needs will solve their problem. The Government have set about revising policy to allow more sustainable development—sustainable in environmental, economic and social terms.
We are revising planning guidance. We have introduced the new deal for transport, the urban task force—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) approached the Chair and stated that I had been unfair to him because I had shortened his intervention. It is my duty to ensure that interventions are short. The occupant of the Chair is even handed with every hon. Member, no matter which part of the House in which they sit. I put that on the record. I certainly do not wish hon. Members to come to the Chair and to tell me what my duties are and what my job should be.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will not take up the time of the Minister because I know that she has to respond to the debate. I will refer the matter to you privately afterwards, if I may. I apologise if I have—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. If the hon. Gentleman has any worries or concerns about my conduct in the Chair, he should take the matter up with Madam Speaker.

Ms Hughes: It is unfortunate, given the manner in which I was prepared to approach the debate, that the antics of Opposition Members have severely curtailed my time and that I cannot make some of the reasoned points that I would have wished to make.
Let us get a couple of things straight about the panel report. The Government did not produce the Serplan report, as the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) contended. The Government did not produce the independent panel report. That report was prepared after an exhaustive examination in public. It sets out its case strongly.

Mr. Page: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Hughes: No, I will not give way to anyone else.
The panel heard the views of different interested parties in the region. It listened carefully to those views and Opposition Members know its conclusions; I will not rehearse them. The Government will respond to Serplan and the panel report when we are ready, which will be as soon as possible. We do not want the matter to drag on and we consider seriously the views of Opposition and Labour Members.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We now come to the next debate.

Sites of Special Scientific Interest

11 am

Caroline Flint: I am privileged to be able to initiate this important Adjournment debate. First, however, I should like to welcome my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to the Treasury Bench.
In this Session, we have had more debates, early-day motions and parliamentary questions on the subject of wildlife protection than I would even dare to mention now. Nevertheless, I make no apology for returning to the subject again, after making a speech on it in another Adjournment debate, in July, right before the summer recess.
There is enormous interest in the subject because action on it is so urgently needed. Since July, when we last debated the destruction of our wildlife sites, more than 100 sites of special scientific interest have been destroyed. Government statistics show that more than 2,000 sites have been destroyed in the past six years. When a habitat goes, the wildlife living in it declines also.
With such rapid destruction and degradation of our precious wildlife resource, there has been steady growth in public and political support for tough and comprehensive new laws. In August, in a poll conducted by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, 65 per cent. of people said that they would like the Government to change the law, to give greater legal protection to wildlife. Additionally, 35 environmental and conservation groups—representing more than 6 million people—are now united in their desire for urgent environmental legislation. Furthermore, an unprecedented 351 hon. Members, from across the political spectrum, have signed early-day motion 11, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper), showing their support for the passage of such laws.
With such clamour for wildlife protection, the Government's document, "SSSIs: the Government's framework for action", which was published in August, was most welcome. I am pleased that it was a Labour Government who, within a short time of being elected, consulted on the issue and produced such a document. Finally, we have a Government who have acknowledged that something needs to be done on the issue.
With such support, and the Government's document, there is now a very real chance of seeing wildlife legislation in this month's Queen's Speech. Many hon. Members, and millions of ordinary members of the public, will be watching and waiting for that to happen. However, they will be watching not only for legislation, but for tough comprehensive legislation.
Let us be clear about it: the opportunity to legislate on wildlife does not come along every day, and we have an opportunity to get it right. If we do not get the legislation right on this occasion, by the time we get another chance to try, in perhaps five or 10 years, we shall have lost many, if not all, of the sites that we are seeking to protect. If the legislation is not comprehensive, sites such as Thorne and Hatfield moors in my constituency will—to use rather unparliamentary language—have had it.
I welcome the framework document, but it is neither sufficiently tough nor sufficiently comprehensive. It contains, for example, no mention of measures to protect

species outside SSSIs or at sea. It does not contain a legal presumption against development affecting SSSIs; nor does it mention an issue that is at the forefront of my constituents' minds—lowland raised peat bogs being cut up by an American multinational, bagged up and sold cheaply to gardeners to sprinkle in their pots. The word peat is not mentioned once in the document.
As I told the House in July, Thorne and Hatfield moors are part of the United Kingdom's remaining 6 per cent. of peat bogs—94 per cent. of which have been lost. Thorne and Hatfield moors are one of the United Kingdom's most vulnerable habitats. The moors comprise England's largest raised peat bog, and are home to 3,000 insects and 800 flowering plants. They are also vital to birds. I have a postcard from Helen Kirk—from the Thorne and Hatfield Moors Conservation Forum—showing a European nightjar, which is a summer visitor to Britain. The moors are internationally important to the survival of that species.
Such a location should be guarded as a national treasure, yet it is being plundered for its peat by a multinational organisation. Thorne and Hatfield moors are SSSIs. However, their old mineral permissions—granted in 1951, when much peat extraction was still done by hand—could not have anticipated the wholesale destruction that industrialised peat extraction would wreak.
Companies such as Fisons and Levington's, and now Scotts, have turned large parts of Hatfield moors into nothing more than a lunar landscape. The site is unrecognisable as an area that was once, 4,000 years ago, an integral part of a vast wetland stretching from the Humber estuary. Earlier this year, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment described it as an intolerable situation. Yet, sadly, the situation would remain the same under any legislation based on the framework for action, as that document gives no indication of how the Government propose to move forward on the issue. Friends of the Earth estimates that there are still mineral permissions on more than 400 sites. We cannot ignore the issue.
The Government must seriously examine peat extraction, and conclude that it is not sustainable. Peat extraction is not economically significant to South Yorkshire. I have campaigned hard with my colleagues in Doncaster on regeneration, to create growth and jobs. I have also not made friends with some of the environmental groups, because I want Finningly air base to be transformed into a regional airport. However, that development will be on a developed-land site.
I am also working hard to discover how we can make the most of South Yorkshire's tourism opportunities. If we have enough vision, the number of jobs in that sector could be increased by opening the area to a major tourist attraction that visitors not only from Britain, but from around the world would like to visit.
In South Yorkshire, we are also working hard to embrace the information technologies and environmental technologies of the future. Our strength and opportunities for growth lie in those sectors, because of the nature of our area. Yorkshire has sound economic alternatives to peat extraction. Moreover, gardeners have sound horticultural alternatives to peat use.
Britain's gardeners will need persuading on those alternatives, and it is time for some of our current crop of celebrity gardeners to take a stand on the issue for the


better. Geoff Hamilton—who was long the voice of gardening on the BBC—was totally opposed to using peat in gardens. We have to ensure that celebrity gardeners take their responsibility seriously. They have to accept that they have some responsibility for gardening's growing popularity—which, in recent years, has led to a fourfold increase in peat use. It does not help that gardening centres sell bags of peat for considerably less than they sell alternative materials.
I shall give an example of contradictions in the current SSSI arrangements, and explain the Natura 2000 proposals. Natura 2000 is a new status for areas of European conservation significance awarded under the habitats or birds directives, and could be part of the future of Thorne and Hatfield moors. However, in its infinite wisdom, English Nature—which, in 1997, proposed removing SSSI status from large parts of Thorne and Hatfield moors—has blundered again.
In 1997, English Nature's rationale for removing the moors' SSSI status was that parts of them had been worked for peat extraction; hence, the vegetation had been stripped, hence—in English Nature's logic—the moors were no longer either special or significant. I am pleased to tell the House that, with the help of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, English Nature bowed to public pressure demanding that Thorne and Hatfield moors be treated as an integral, whole and interdependent ecosystem that needed restoration and protection in law, not further destruction.
We hear now that, rather than submitting Thorne and Hatfield moors for Natura 2000 status, English Nature has redrawn the boundary to exclude the worked parts of Hatfield moors. Therefore, the provision to review the planning licences on the Natura 2000 site will not include the area currently being ravaged by Scotts. Consequently, we have a chicken and egg scenario, in which an entire area is covered by SSSI designation, but continued peat extraction is undermining the opportunity to take advantage of other environmental protection legislation to protect the entire moorland as one entity.
Once again, English Nature is playing politics with conservation boundaries. The action is driven not by science, but by a weak-willed desire to reconcile opposites. In so doing, English Nature has once again left a huge hole in the protective cloak that could have shrouded those precious wetlands.
The point of the Natura 2000 project was to confer millennial status. It demanded a look forward to the needs of wetlands 50 years ahead, not the nightmare creations of 50 years ago. I am afraid and disappointed that, by leaving out large sections of Hatfield moors, it is giving up on the moors. I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to comment on that.
I seek reassurances that the worked areas should be included in the review of planning licences. Not including them will make a significant statement about how the areas are viewed.

Mr. David Chaytor: I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. Does she agree that, although the protection of SSSIs is a necessary precondition for the long-term improvement of the preservation of wildlife in this country, it is not the only

thing that needs to be done? Does she agree that in any future wildlife legislation the importance of local nature reserves needs to be recognised? I should like to tell her about two important local reserves in my constituency, the Summerseat nature reserve and the Chesham woods area, both of which are managed by the Lancashire wildlife—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. That intervention was far too long.

Caroline Flint: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. As a constituency Member, my concern is about peat lands, but I am fully aware that others have constituency concerns relating to areas that are missing in the framework document. Local nature reserves, which involve local people and local communities, are an important part of sustainability and ensuring a future for valuable sites as we enter the next millennium.
It will take more than Alan, Charlie and Tommy to do a "Ground Force" makeover on Hatfield moor if it endures another five years of destruction. Until recently, the accepted wisdom was that were the Government to modify old minerals permissions, they would have to compensate the extractors on a profits forgone basis. That may be why the framework document did not address the issue.
However, there are two obvious problems with that approach. First, compensation payments would require an enormous commitment from the taxpayer, possibly millions of pounds per site. Secondly, paying such compensation would send out the wrong message about the public interest in the conservation of such sites. Why should the British taxpayer compensate an American multinational for not destroying one of our best wildlife habitats at Thorne and Hatfield moors? We would not compensate them not to demolish St. Paul's cathedral, so why compensate them for not destroying a peat bog?
In June this year, Friends of the Earth obtained legal advice stating that the Government could pay compensation that recognises only costs involved, not profits lost. That was based on the premise that any such action would manifestly be acting in the public interest. What consideration has been given to that legal opinion, which represents a good way to protect a precious site that is being destroyed relentlessly in the name of a quick buck?
I should also like an assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister that the Government are predisposed against peat extraction. It is not like coal, which served our industry well since the industrial revolution, or aggregates, which are needed for roads and buildings. We can live without peat for horticultural use. There is no partnership to be established, no common objectives, no business development that will not ruin the unique raised mires of Thorne and Hatfield moors.
One of the many letters that I have had from constituents on the issue was from Mark Paine, a local health care professional. He said:
For those of us that live around here and are privileged to know the Moors, the sight of our peat being taken away and sold as 'compost' to unwitting gardeners bamboozled by marketing spin cuts very deep indeed. Thorne and Hatfield Moors are places whose very existence in scientific terms truly contributes to the health of our environment, and therefore our ability to sustain healthy lives of our own.


Peat wetlands are the UK equivalent of tropical rainforests: precious, under siege, irreplaceable. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take a hard look at Thorne and Hatfield moors and to listen to the concerns of my colleagues this morning about other aspects of the framework document. Please do not ignore the plight of that beleaguered SSSI site.

Mr. Tom Brake: I congratulate the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on securing a further debate on SSSIs. I hope that these debates—as she said, we have had several in the past six months—will act as a spur to the Government and will not be seen as a substitute for Government action. Protecting SSSIs adequately becomes ever more vital as each day passes. Every day, an SSSI is destroyed or damaged.
Last week, English Nature published its annual report, which showed that one third of all sites of special scientific interest are suffering continuing damage and neglect. Last year, 8,300 acres of SSSI land were actively damaged. Rob Cooke, the manager of English Nature's SSSI project, says:
What has emerged is that 28 per cent. of the natural features of our SSSIs are in poor condition and either getting worse or not getting any better.
He continued:
Indications are that about a third of England's SSSI area of just over two and a half million acres comes into that category".
That is the equivalent of 750,000 acres.
The report picks out Whernside in North Yorkshire, where more than half of a 9,500 acre site of bog and heathland has been devastated by overgrazing. English Nature thinks that it could be restored with the right management, but there is no legislation to ensure that. One site—Horse Field in Gilling, North Yorkshire—has been destroyed.
To prevent any further sites being totally destroyed, we need legislation in the next Queen's Speech. Baroness Young, the chairperson of English Nature, agrees. She has said:
Changes of legislation are urgently needed to ensure that these irreplaceable sites are properly managed for their wildlife and natural features.
She went on:
Most of these SSSIs are suffering from neglect, but without the powers to ensure that these sites are managed for wildlife, English Nature is trying to work with one hand tied behind its back. It is frustrating because many of these sites could be improved by positive management, funded through English Nature's wildlife enhancement scheme. When we cannot achieve this management through partnership"—
this is the important point—
we need to have additional powers to ensure that damage and neglect of these sites can be tackled.
Landowners also recognise that. In response to the Government's consultation, they have said that although
deliberate damage was rare, where it occurred there should be appropriate means of dealing with it.
Species are suffering—not just the familiar, often mentioned ones such as the dormouse and the water vole, but others such as the black redstart, one of Britain's rarest birds. The recent loss of sites in London along the

Thames to development has destroyed the breeding grounds of birds, despite their being recognised in the planning process as important wildlife areas. Sadly, some of the new developments have been stimulated by the building of the millennium dome. Perhaps that is not quite the right signal for the new millennium.
English Nature is not the only organisation to back further wildlife legislation. The Wildlife and Countryside Link—which brings together 22 environmental groups—is calling for legislation. As we have heard in previous debates, nearly 350 Members of Parliament have called for legislation and signed an early-day motion tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper). It seems that everybody is urging the forces of conservatism forward. Before the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) jumps up, we are talking about the forces of conservatism with a small "c".
Before the election, Labour promised greater protection for wildlife. That pledge is still in the Government's annual report, on page 79. Next to it are the words "on course". A consultation paper was issued in September 1998. Those words are of little help to sites such as Offham down or Rainham marsh, which have been damaged since May 1997, despite Labour's pledge. They are also of little help to the 11 wildflower meadows in Devon which The Daily Telegraph reported last month have been largely destroyed. For them, Labour's pledge of "greater protection for wildlife" is very much off course.
When the Government publish their next annual report, the words "on course" next to greater protection for wildlife will not be good enough; we have to see the word "done" instead. To deliver that pre-election pledge, the Government will have to legislate, and legislate well.
I wish to highlight a few issues surrounding the framework for action document. Liberal Democrats join others in welcoming what is in the paper. In legislation, such measures would go a long way towards delivering the Government's pledge, but not all the way. There are some significant omissions, some of which were referred to by the hon. Member for Don Valley. Given the difficulty in obtaining parliamentary time for such a Bill, we must make sure that we get it right first time. We cannot afford to be less than comprehensive, and then have to wait 20 years for another legislative slot.
There must be reform of the common agricultural policy, with a greater focus on positive environmental management and organic production. That must be better financial support for the management of SSSIs. This is particularly important given the state of agriculture, often described as being in crisis and often debated in this House. We need also to ensure not only that we give the powers to the new conservation agencies to protect wildlife, but that they use those powers. Government guidance and support must be strong to ensure that that happens.
We need to make sure that legislation protects not just SSSIs but other valuable wildlife sites as well. The London Wildlife Trust has told me that many rare orchids, butterflies and birds could thrive in churchyards and cemeteries across the capital if only they were given the chance. The same could apply to Wilderness island and Roundshaw downs in my constituency.

Mr. Chaytor: Does not it follow that, in any future legislation, the powers, responsibilities and budgets of the


county wildlife trusts need to be enhanced so that they can encourage biodiversity in the urban settings that the hon. Gentleman is describing?

Mr. Brake: That is the case, and resources are important.
As the hon. Member for Don Valley has said, we need to protect species in our seas and coastal areas. For whales, dolphins and porpoises around the UK the situation is far from satisfactory, and those animals are threatened by ever-faster boats and jet skis. They are not adequately protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and I understand that the position will be no better under the proposed legislation. The Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society has raised the matter with the Government, and I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure hon. Members.
I hope that I and other hon. Members will have demonstrated that the case for legislation is clear and becomes more pressing as each day passes and another SSSI is damaged or destroyed. The Government will have the support of the whole House if they announce such a measure in the Queen's Speech this autumn. I urge them to do so, and to ensure that legislation is robust and comprehensive enough to stand the test of time.

Mr. David Taylor: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on securing this important debate on sites of special scientific interest. None of us should apologise for the frequency with which we bring these matters to the House.
For many SSSIs, it is already five minutes to midnight and, for others, sadly, the bells have tolled—they have gone. In years to come, we must not hear my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley asking, "Where have all the peat bogs gone? Gone to plant pots every one". That is the risk we face.
SSSIs are, without doubt, the very best examples of our natural heritage. The importance of their plants, animals or geological and physiographical features has led to those areas receiving the SSSI designation from English Nature. The 4,000 or so such sites cover 1 million hectares in England—4,000 precious and valued square miles.
Historically, a good deal of my constituency has been economically dependent on mineral extraction—including coal, clay, sand, roadstone and gravel. That era is steadily drawing to a close, and we are now restoring the tranches of derelict land in a variety of ways, prominent among which is the rapidly developing national forest—a remarkably successful project.
Former mining areas, such as my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley, have been environmentally scarred for generations. Our landscape and wildlife have not been seen traditionally as our strengths. We particularly value the relatively few SSSIs that we have, and we are especially sensitive about any damage to or loss of such sites.
As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) suggested, it has been estimated by English Nature that, nationally, 28 per cent. of SSSI aspects—

those features of interest for which a site is nationally important—are in an unfavourable condition. There is either no sign of recovery, or they are declining even further. That should give us all great concern. Tighter legislation is essential to ensure that all SSSIs are managed so as to maintain to a high standard their particular features of interest.
We recognise that changing the legislative framework is not sufficient on its own to obtain the necessary improvements. We need a new policy direction, refined regulations and, above all, adequate resources. To obtain better management of SSSIs requires us to work in partnership with their owners and managers.
It is crucial to have the right mix of regulation and incentive to ensure that the major present benefits obtained by partnership working with land managers and owners are maintained. While many SSSIs are positively managed with the active help, goodwill and co-operation of their owners and occupiers, I regret to say that a substantial number are not.
It is time for the Government to legislate to deal with those cases. The present legal framework is unable to deal with SSSI damage arising from certain circumstances—for instance, third parties can badly damage SSSIs, or the sites can simply be neglected, with a consequent loss or decline of many species and habitats.
A major threat to SSSIs often arises when the owner or occupier activates an ancient planning permission which the modern planning framework would never have sanctioned. Owners and occupiers can, after giving notice, carry out damaging activities, preventable only if English Nature produces a management agreement with financial compensation for lost profits.
My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley pointed to the dramatic weaknesses in that approach, and it is a costly diversion of resources from active nature conservation. In addition, particular difficulties occur on approximately 500 wetland SSSIs which depend on satisfactory management of the water tables on adjoining land. Many such sites are suffering from water pollution or abstraction problems. It is clearly essential to ensure that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food implements water level management plans on land adjoining SSSIs which will maintain the particularly valued feature of the sites.
There is no current requirement for the owners or occupiers of SSSIs to carry out that management which is necessary to maintain the key points of interest of the sites in question—a problem often of benign neglect. A positive management order—analogous to the order served upon the owners of listed buildings—has been suggested by some as a solution to the problem. Such an order would require owners to carry out the work themselves, or enable English Nature to do so and to recover the cost from the owner.
English Nature has publicly stated its belief that such orders would not be workable for SSSIs, since it would be hard to carry out practical management activities—many of which would be ongoing commitments—without the active co-operation of the owner or occupier concerned.
Will the Minister comment on the potential for a different type of positive management order, whereby English Nature could specify, through a site management statement, the work necessary to maintain the scientific


interest of the SSSI? If the owner's agreement cannot be obtained, even with appropriate assistance from organisations such as the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency, English Nature's council should be empowered to serve a positive management order requiring that the work be completed.
An appeal against the terms of such an order could be made to the Secretary of State by the owner. If the order was confirmed, the owner or occupier would have the choice of completing the works within an agreed time scale, with financial support from English Nature, or agreeing to voluntary sale of the land to English Nature or an approved conservation body. If the owner refused both those alternatives, compulsory purchase proceedings would be initiated, with an appeal process through the planning inquiry system and confirmation by the Secretary of State.
The attractions of that approach are that the same process of appeal could be used to resolve refusals to allow operations likely to damage the scientific interest of the SSSI and that such a system could eventually replace the present order under section 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
There is a pressing need to reform the common agricultural policy so that payments are focused to deliver positive benefits for SSSIs and to discourage the intensive agricultural practices that have the most damaging effect on wildlife. Production subsidies should be redirected to protecting and managing special sites and the countryside, converting to organic farming or creating jobs in rural areas; direct subsidies to farmers should be conditional on sustainable farming, with protections for hedgerows, rivers and streams; and payments to beef farmers should be made under discretionary powers from the European Union to support traditional, low intensity herds, so as to maintain conservation grasslands.
I make a plea from the heart for much tougher planning guidance so that far higher hurdles must be surmounted before any developments on SSSIs are sanctioned. We should also consider revocation of old mineral extraction permissions that could damage SSSIs.
Those of us with constituencies that have suffered a great deal of despoliation are especially alert to threats to our SSSIs. When I reviewed the condition assessments and management prospects for 16 sites in my area, I found that of the 53 features of interest a bare 30 per cent. were in a favourable condition, compared with 56 per cent. nationally; 26 per cent. were in an unfavourable condition, but showing signs of recovery; and the remaining 44 per cent. were in an unsatisfactory condition, compared with 28 per cent. nationally. It was that high proportion of local sites suffering from benign neglect that prompted me to contribute to this debate.
A typical example concerns the SSSIs in Grace Dieu and High Sharpley: very attractive, important and valued areas just outside the urban fringe of Coalville. Parts of the areas have some public access and parts are closed by their owners to "protect the SSSIs"; yet an assessment of the sites shows that two thirds of their features are in an unfavourable condition that is not improving. Clearly, restriction of public access has not led to adequate protection for those important and sensitive sites. More has to be done.
Like every Labour candidate, especially those contesting rural or part-rural seats, I campaigned vigorously on environmental issues in the long run-up to

the 1997 general election. Labour's policies, enabling the countryside to become ecologically richer, more varied and more accessible were, and are, especially popular. Those policies include our commitment to strengthening protection for SSSIs and other valuable habitats.
Like every Labour Member, I welcomed the announcement earlier this year by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment that he would deliver on that commitment by amending the 1981 Act, and I was encouraged by the Government's public consultation paper, "SSSIs—Better Protection and Management". There is strong cross-party support for better wildlife protection. Many hon. Members are signatories to early-day motion 11.
It is clear that the statutory conservation agencies need new powers and resources to tackle the worsening problems facing almost a third of SSSIs. There is an urgent need to act, and it would be popular, so what better time than two weeks from today, what better setting than the other place and what better means than the Queen's Speech? I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that the necessary powers and resources are made available very soon to prevent yet more deterioration of our national natural assets.
Oscar Wilde said that

"each man kills the thing he loves,
By each let this be heard,
Some do it with a bitter look,
Some with a flattering word,
The coward does it with a kiss,
The brave man with a sword!"

Is not our nation at risk of allowing some of the things that we most love—SSSIs—to be killed by a method not mentioned by Wilde: benign neglect by their owners or occupiers? Is not it about time that we were brave enough to step in and prevent that?

Mrs. Helen Brinton: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on securing this timely debate and I welcome many of her comments.
The subject of new Government action to protect our best wildlife sites has been debated several times this Session in both Houses, and an unprecedented number of hon. Members of all parties have given their support to early-day motion 11, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) last November. I wish that they were all here today for what is perhaps our last chance to debate this issue before the Queen's Speech.
We are nearing the end of this Session and all of us here today are optimistic that the next Session will see the introduction of new and far-reaching legislation to protect our wildlife. If so, the task will then be to ensure that it is as comprehensive as possible, because there is unlikely to be another major opportunity in the foreseeable future. Some, indeed many, matters may be dealt with by other means than primary legislation—by regulations and other policy measures to benefit the condition of wildlife—but stronger legislation is essential. We cannot allow the present rate of damage and destruction of sites and loss of species to continue.
There was widespread welcome last August when the Government published their response to the consultation on sites of special scientific interest, known as the framework for action. It includes many vital proposals, such as nationally important status for all SSSIs; a duty on all public bodies to secure positive management of sites that they own or occupy; powers of entry to land for agencies such as English Nature for the purposes of surveying and monitoring and to determine whether an offence has been committed; court power to order restoration following damage; court power to impose unlimited fines; and the extension of local authority powers to refuse development on designated sites.
The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—especial thanks are due to my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister for the Environment—has worked hard with a wide spectrum of interested groups to try to ensure that we get things right in the new legislation.
I am especially delighted that water companies have been asked to include in their business plans from next year measures to deal with the damaging effects of effluents and water abstraction, especially because the demand for water is likely to increase with the projected growth in the number of households; because my constituency is in an area of important rivers and wetland sites, including the Nene and Ouse washes; and because there is evidence that the three counties of Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire have less wildlife per hectare than almost anywhere else in the country.
I was very glad to read in the framework that the Government recognise the need to provide adequate funding to underpin other wildlife protection measures. We know that many of the problems affecting wildlife habitats today, and SSSIs in particular, are not due to direct destruction—wilful vandalism—by development, as happened in the past. Most public bodies, landowners and farmers do not set out deliberately to damage the sites that they own or manage. The damage is more often a result of neglect, which may in turn be a result of special agricultural practices, and is often related to inadequate or inappropriate funding mechanisms.
Landowners are, and most regard themselves as, the rightful stewards of the countryside, and they need support for that role, such as financial incentives—carrots, not just sticks. There should be much more support for what are called agri-environment initiatives, including subsidies such as that for countryside stewardship, which is very popular with farmers although there is not enough money to meet the demand. I say that with the Minister listening. At present, only 3 per cent. of CAP money is spent on such schemes. The Wildlife and Countryside Link, with which I have been proud to work in recent months, reckons that figure should be 30 per cent., which would provide scope for major environmental improvements.
It should be rewarding for farmers to spend their time conserving our wildlife in the interests of us all. In any case, we cannot achieve conservation without the active involvement, support and engagement of farmers. We need copper-bottomed legislation, but we need the right incentives and funding, too.
The otherwise excellent framework document has a serious omission—as serious as that of mineral extractions highlighted at the beginning of the debate. I am especially concerned that, as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) said, no proposals have yet been made to protect marine mammals, such as whales, dolphins and porpoises, from harassment. The seas around the United Kingdom are home to more than 20 different species of cetaceans, as those animals are collectively known.
Research conducted by the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, of which we have heard today, has shown that cetaceans are threatened by accidental capture in fishing nets, chemical pollution, noise pollution and other disturbance by vessels of their habitat. Some of that, ironically, may be due to the great interest in and affection for those animals felt by many of us humans. They are known to be highly intelligent, they have often appeared to reciprocate our interest and they do not pose any threat to us. In consequence, there has been a great interest in boat-based whale and dolphin watching in recent years, and I am convinced that that requires some form of regulation with a statutory underpinning, if we are not to end up damaging or destroying the subjects of our admiration through our neglect and thoughtlessness.
Less forgivably, increasing evidence is emerging of deliberate harassment of cetaceans, especially dolphins, in coastal waters. The Sunday Times has highlighted the campaign against the use of jet skis to chase dolphins. The riders of the jet skis may mean to chase the dolphins, but not mean to hurt them. Many people think that dolphins can swim fast enough or dive deep enough to escape the vessels chasing them, but jet skis can travel at speeds of up to 70 mph whereas a dolphin's top speed is about 35 mph and it cannot keep that up for long. Also, dolphins are of course mammals and therefore have to come up to the surface to breathe every few minutes. They are especially vulnerable when they have young calves with them.
Several measures are urgently needed to provide effective protection for cetaceans in UK waters. First, powers of enforcement should be extended. At present, powers are held only by the police, but most of the offences against marine species are—not surprisingly—committed at sea where there are no police. It therefore seems common sense to give similar powers to other agencies which can enforce the provisions of existing and any new wildlife legislation. Secondly, sanctions should be increased. We need effective deterrents—sticks as well as carrots—including powers to bring prosecutions, powers of arrest and penalties for offenders.
Thirdly, the concept of recklessness should be more widely introduced into wildlife law, as in the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 which was introduced by the previous Administration. As I have said, most people do not wish or intend to harm dolphins and whales, whether they go on trips to watch them or even if they chase them on jet skis. Perhaps most people, if they understood the serious risk of harmful consequences of such actions, would stop them.
Under UK law, a person is reckless if he or she commits an act which to an ordinary prudent individual would appear to involve an obvious and serious risk, whether it is because they are thoughtless, or, having recognised the risk, they carry on regardless. I believe that where a nature conservation agency has notified that an


action is likely to harm a protected species, failure to act on that information should give rise to an offence of recklessness. Therefore, what we must do here in Parliament is to amend the existing legal protection in order to make it an offence intentionally or recklessly to disturb protected species of animals, including all cetaceans. An alternative approach would be to provide more specifically to make it an offence to harass any cetacean, combining that again with the concept of recklessness.
The Government plan a marine review, and I welcome that, but the need to protect the wonderful creatures that we are so fortunate to have in the seas around our islands is urgent and I believe that we should use the opportunity provided by a new wildlife Bill—which I desperately hope to see included in the Queen's Speech—to address that urgent need.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on introducing this debate. Unfortunately, we should point out that almost all Opposition Members have failed to turn up, let alone contribute this morning. The SSSIs are important to every constituency, and I would have thought that a better attendance from Opposition Members would have ensured a good debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I wish to make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that this is an Adjournment debate and the only people who must be present are the occupant of the Chair, the Minister and the hon. Lady who initiated the debate. It is not necessary for any other hon. Member to be present.

Mr. Hoyle: I am sure that you would agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is desirable for hon. Members to consider SSSIs and the future of wildlife in this country. The SSSIs are one of the most important factors in the protection of the countryside and wildlife, but, in the past 18 years, we have seen developers encroaching on them. That will always continue, because the greed for a little bit more will always exist. The feeling is that development on an extra small piece of land will not make any difference, but protection is needed against such encroachment.
A new challenge for the new millennium should be to provide solid, reliable protection for SSSIs and wildlife for the future. If such protection needs a new name, let it have a new name. We should seriously consider how we write such protection in stone, so that it cannot be nibbled away at the edges. It should also be easier for SSSIs to be listed, because we have already heard of how small pieces of land, whether in cities, towns or rural areas, may not fit into the category of SSSIs. The definition should not be so strict or regulated, and any piece of land should be included as long as it is worthy of protection. We should make it easier for people to obtain designations for land, and the protection that listing as SSSI gives should be afforded to all our constituencies, no matter how large or small the piece of land concerned. The main point is that a site should be worthy.
In addition, we must recognise that wildlife in the countryside needs protection. The best way to provide that is through a national rangers agency. The question of

resources is always important, but those rangers could look after SSSIs and country parks. By linking up with the national parks, they could offer true protection.
I am lucky in having part of the West Pennine moors in my constituency. That beautiful area is owned by North West Water, which itself is now part of United Utilities. There is nothing wrong with the arrangement: the company spends money on rangers and on ensuring that there is protection for wildlife.
More than a million people a year want to visit the part of the moor that is in my constituency. I do not want to tell those people that they cannot go there, as I think everyone ought to be able to share that beautiful countryside. However, what will happen if a French or American company snaps up United Utilities? We will then have to rely for that area's protection on an overseas company that does not understand the requirements of the countryside.
That is why I believe that the area would benefit from being declared an SSSI. We failed to achieve that in the past, but we could lose the protection afforded by the present owners overnight. I hope therefore that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider new ways to protect for future generations the countryside and the rural wildlife habitat that we love.
It is easy to look backwards, but we should look to the future and to the provision of further protection for the countryside. Extra funding will be needed. Farmers throughout the country are having a really tough time. However, given that no alternative funding for wildlife protection is available outside the assisted areas, farmers in those areas could be hired as part-time rangers. That alternative income would mean that they would not have to rely entirely on farming, as they would be employed to protect our countryside, wildlife habitats and SSSIs. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider how such a scheme might be implemented, by his and other Departments.
I am sure that in every constituency there is at least one application for a licence for commercial exploitation—for the extraction of minerals or of peat, for example—to which the first response is always to say no. I recognise that roads and houses have to be built, but no new licences should be granted unless a genuine need exists, and unless existing licences are taken into account.
A licence application has been submitted for a huge sand extraction facility at the village of Euxton in my constituency. However, the sand from a similar facility not far away is being stored because no one wants to buy it. The real value lies, not with the minerals extracted from such sites, but with the resulting hole in the ground, which can be filled with household or industrial waste.
Licence applications for mineral extractions should be refused if similar facilities exist within a 25-mile radius. Companies should be told that they cannot attempt to get a hole in the ground through that means. Existing licences should have to be shared, and the resources involved should have to be exhausted before new licences are granted. That would be a clear indication of the Government's determination to protect the countryside, and it would reassure the villagers of Euxton that those who want to make a quick, cheap pound out of a hole in the ground will not succeed.
I know that the Government will not fail the people of this country, or SSSIs, or wildlife. Unlike the previous Conservative Government, the Labour Government will be able to go into the next general election with their head held high.

Mr. David Lepper: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on securing this morning's debate. I apologise that I was not here for its start, but I could not change a commitment of long standing. However, I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute a few comments.
The events of a couple of years ago at Offham down, at Lewes near my constituency, first made me aware of the vulnerability of sites of special scientific interest. The farmer there decided to plough up an SSSI on his land, to take advantage of the common agricultural policy's financial subsidy scheme. Who could blame him? However, local people decided that his action was not right, and turned out in force to replace the soil as soon as the farmer's plough turned it. Eventually, action was taken to restore that site.
That brought home to me just how vulnerable SSSIs are. I know that the Government intend to introduce legislation to protect them—my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and other Ministers, have told me so. It is merely a matter of when such legislation will be brought in.
About a year ago, I introduced my Wildlife Bill into the House. Like most other private Members' Bills, it did not get very far, but it received a heartening level of support among hon. Members. For example, 349 hon. Members have now signed early-day motion 11, supporting my Bill and the wildlife charter proposed by a number of relevant organisations.
Moreover, the provisions that I have suggested and about which we have heard this morning also have support across the country. Earlier this year, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) and I delivered to Downing street a quarter of a million signatures collected from people who wanted to urge the Government and Parliament to introduce stronger wildlife protection legislation.
We have heard this morning about some of the omissions from the Government's framework for action document. I welcome that document, which contains many of the elements that I included in my Bill. However, the Government have not made a commitment on the matter of marine protection, which my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) mentioned. There should be a greater emphasis on local wildlife sites, and more attention needs to be paid to the vulnerable land around the SSSIs.
Many habitats will disappear if action is not taken now. At present, 28 per cent. of SSSIs are in a state of neglect, and many of the species familiar in our countryside will not survive for future generations to enjoy. Given the present system of agricultural subsidies, we need to offer financial incentives for the good management of the sites. We need carrots as well as sticks.
Other hon. Members may not agree, but I do not consider that there is a contradiction between campaigning for wider access to the countryside and for

environmental protection. I have previously mentioned the beautifully named Drencher bottom, Well bottom and Big bottom on the south downs. They are not areas of special scientific interest, but they are of interest to anyone concerned with wildlife. Those areas have suffered intense neglect which was discovered, I fear, only when some local ramblers trespassed, as they should not have done. I urge the Minister to be sympathetic to the calls made to him this morning. I hope that the Queen's Speech will include the required legislation.

12 noon

Mr. Damian Green: I congratulate the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on securing the debate, and I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), to his new role. He will have realised that many of us are veterans of these Wednesday morning discussions of sites of special scientific interest, of which there have been many during the past few months. He may have to clear his diary on Wednesday mornings for many months to come as they are a regular feature. I welcome the Minister not least because the sight of him at the Dispatch Box after what he will agree has been one of the more tortuous journeys up the greasy pole gives hope to us all. I am delighted to see him make it.
Like many hon. Members, I hope that we are moving towards legislation. Last time we debated SSSIs, in July, the Minister for the Environment had been on the "Today" programme campaigning for legislative time. I, like others, understand that he has been successful in that, and I certainly hope that he has. The delay in taking steps to protect SSSIs and other areas of great wildlife value has been damaging.
Other hon. Members have given figures this morning, and the Minister will know that about 300 SSSIs are being damaged every year. Half of them are in unfavourable condition, and many suffer from neglect. This century, 134 species are known to have become extinct, and the rate of extinction is about three species every two years. SSSIs should obviously be used to protect our most endangered species, and the importance of early legislation is clear.
The hon. Member for Don Valley said that she hoped for early action, drawing a contrast with the previous Government. I should gently remind her that the previous attempt to deal with the problems was the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which was introduced during the second full Session of the Conservative Government, who saw the matter as an urgent one.

Caroline Flint: That Act, which was enacted by the Conservatives, has done nothing to stop peat extraction on the site to which I have referred and on which damage continues. The very problem that I am seeking to address is the failure of previous legislation to control peat extraction, and ultimately to put an end to it.

Mr. Green: We all accept that the 1981 Act, which updated previous legislation from the 1940s, needs itself to be updated. But the Government's framework document says that the new proposals would not wholly replace the relevant provisions of the 1981 Act. There is a tendency to say that that Act did no good at all, but that is not so.
I hope that the Government will end the damaging delay of the past two years or so. A feeling has got about that the Government always want to be green tomorrow, but not quite today. I hope that we have finally reached the stage when they will fulfil their promises.
Having said that, the Opposition agree on the ends of any new legislation affecting improvement to SSSIs. I have several questions for the Minister, and some concerns about the scope and practicalities of any Bill. First, on the scope of the Bill, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) has mentioned access, which is an area of legitimate concern. The Minister will be aware of the dangers of including access provisions in the legislation. They would make a Bill more controversial, which would be likely to delay its passage, and that would be regrettable. Any proposal to extend access must not pose a threat to wildlife; most walkers and ramblers behave responsibly, but the Minister will acknowledge that it takes only one irresponsible person to damage a habitat, possibly irreversibly. I hope that such concerns will be uppermost in his mind as he prepares the Bill.
The Wildlife Trusts have made a number of good points on access, saying that a
distinction must be made between access on foot for quiet enjoyment and access for other recreational pursuits that are more disruptive to wildlife".
The trusts add:
Agencies should have the power to close (permanently or temporarily) areas or close or divert rights of way, if…access is having a significant affect on the wildlife or habitat.
The trusts also make the good point that there
should be wide-ranging consultation before access to other areas of open country are agreed.
Those are sensible proposals, and it would be interesting to hear how the Minister's thinking is developing on that important aspect of any legislation.
Other bodies have raised concerns about whether access on open land will be linear only or more wide ranging. What practical measures will be taken on the control of dogs? That is a matter of great concern both to those who own farm animals and to those concerned about such issues as ground-nesting birds, because decisions on the control of dogs have the potential for directly damaging SSSIs, which would undermine the many good intentions of the Government's framework for action.
My second area of concern is the balance between partnership and enforcement. I welcome the framework's words about the Government's preference for voluntary agreements where possible. However, enforcement powers will clearly and necessarily be taken, and it would be useful to hear more details about those powers or the principles that will underlie them. When would they apply? What powers of entry on to land does the Minister envisage? How should they be enforced? The Minister will accept that the long-term management of SSSIs and other land benefits from a positive relationship between regulatory bodies and landowners. That is the best way in which to have land managed sensitively in the long term.
The right of appeal mentioned in the Government's proposals also raises some questions. The appeal would be to the Secretary of State, but when a dispute arises between a public body that reports to the Secretary of State and a private individual, the individual may not feel

that justice has been served. Have the Government considered any alternative way in which to resolve disputes?
My next area of concern is funding. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) mentioned that matter, and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has said that the
nature conservation agencies do not currently have enough funds to deliver the proposals
that the Government have made. The RSPB estimates that
£20 million is required for this in England alone
but adds that that sum is
insignificant when compared to the agriculture subsidies which have often led to the demise of many sites in the first place.
Can the Minister tell us whether the resource implications have been thought through?
A significant role in the protection of wildlife—specifically SSSIs—is played by existing agri-environment schemes such as the countryside stewardship scheme. It would be interesting to know whether any expansion was envisaged for those schemes, which have proved so useful.
The next subject of anxiety lies outside the SSSIs—I refer especially to the land that adjoins them. That land should not be developed unsympathetically. The Minister will know of examples of planning developments near a protected SSSI that render it much less useful. I refer the Minister to our previous debate this morning about development in the south-east, and to yesterday's debate about greenfield sites. Many Labour Members, especially the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson), welcome more development on green fields in the south-east of England because they believe that the new houses are likely to be occupied by Labour voters. I hope that the Minister will deprecate the environmental vandalism that some of his hon. Friends seem to advocate, which would adversely affect SSSIs. The argument about green fields in the south-east and in the rest of the country will continue. It has a direct bearing on this debate.
The framework for action may not provide sufficient protection for areas of outstanding natural beauty and locally designated protection zones, which were mentioned earlier. The World Wide Fund for Nature claimed that the framework did not constitute a way forward either by providing a legal basis for the biodiversity action plan or by helping the marine environment, which the hon. Member for Peterborough mentioned.
Let us consider the Natura 2000 sites. The Government have been told that they have not done well enough and their list has been sent back. The World Wide Fund for Nature believes that there should be up to 1,000 special areas of conservation under the Natura 2000 programme. Why have the Government proposed so few sites, which would be a great addition to the web of support that we can provide for wildlife and general species protection?
I am worried that the framework ignores the role of the common agricultural policy, which other hon. Members have mentioned. Any discussion must take place against the background of the current CAP's failure to pass many sensible environmental tests. The way in which land is farmed is probably the most important influence on the future environmental health of the land and the species that live on it. Agricultural practices are supremely


important. The Berlin negotiations on the future of the CAP failed in many ways: they did not help the consumer or the farmer. They also failed the environment.
The CAP must move—albeit gradually—towards a different sort of subsidy. Subsidising production alone is an out-of-date concept. It distorts the market for food and is out of date because it fails to protect the environment. I suspect that we shall have to continue to subsidise those who look after the land for the foreseeable future, but the largely urban public would be much happier to pay taxes to subsidise farmers to buy environmental goods rather than simply to subsidise production. That point did not come across in Berlin, and I hope that the Government will address it in future CAP negotiations.
The Opposition will welcome sensible proposals; a wide consensus will support sensible and practical moves to protect wildlife. As long as the Government stick to sensible and practical policies, we shall not try to obstruct or delay legislation. I hope that legislation based on the framework will hold to those principles.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) for initiating a good debate, to which Members on both sides of the House made thoughtful and positive contributions. People of all political persuasions are concerned about SSSIs; the extent of the support for the early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) shows the strength of feeling in the House.
I shall do my best to address as many as possible of the points that were made in the debate. As is often the case in such debates, I must hastily edit my contribution. Therefore, I am unlikely to reach all the points that were raised. I shall respond in writing when necessary.
The Government have a good story to tell about SSSIs and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley for the opportunity to relate it. I shall deal briefly with the points that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) made. The hon. Gentleman asked about the scope of the Bill. This is not the place to go into detail or to discuss the right to roam. However, any threats to SSSIs do not tend to come from ramblers.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the balance between partnership and enforcement. I agree that that is a delicate matter and that it is preferable, when possible, to have a positive relationship with the owners of the site. However, any policy must include enforcement powers if it is to be taken seriously. We shall consider that carefully.
The hon. Gentleman asked about funding. It always warms my heart to hear an Opposition Member demanding that more public money be spent. The Government have already allocated an extra £6.14 million to English Nature. If we decide to grant more money in due course, we look forward to the Opposition's support. The development of greenfield sites is much debated. It has some relevance to SSSIs, but we cannot consider that this morning.
The debate has focused on the protection of special sites of scientific interest. I understand that emphasis. We need to pay particular attention to the conservation of

those important sites that constitute some of our most precious areas for wildlife, harbouring rare or endangered species and providing the habitats where they can flourish. The Government have given priority to drawing up proposals that we believe will provide for better protection and management of SSSIs. They are the 5,000 or so sites in England and Wales that constitute the best areas for nature conservation and have been designated by English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales as containing nationally important species and habitats.
Many SSSIs are well managed and in good condition, and I pay tribute to those owners and managers who have taken account of the environmental significance of their land, and enjoy a constructive relationship with the conservation agencies. However, we have to recognise that too many special sites are wantonly damaged, and, in many cases, they are not in good health.
English Nature already aims to increase the proportion of sites that are being positively managed for conservation, and to reduce the proportion that are in an unfavourable condition. As I said earlier, we have already provided additional resources to English Nature in the current financial year to assist that work, and we expect long-term benefits. However, we recognise that more needs to be done to encourage that process and provide the best framework in which it can operate. For those reasons, my Department published a consultation paper on sites of special scientific interest last September. It contains significant proposals to help deliver real improvements in England and Wales in the immediate future. Many hon. Members referred to it today. We followed that in August with the statement, to which hon. Members have also referred, that sets the framework for legislative and other action by Government.
On legislation, our proposals have covered a range of options. The sites are diverse, covering a huge range of habitats and special features, and they are subject to a variety of pressures. More than half the sites are in good shape. The problems that we face in perhaps a quarter of those sites are also diverse. We have consistently emphasised that better protection and management must be secured by changing our approach in several areas, including policy, administration, law and finance. However, the framework for action is clear in spelling out the legislative changes that must be made.

Mr. Brake: Obviously, I do not expect the Minister to reveal what is in the Queen's Speech, but does he expect that, in next year's annual report, the word "done" will appear against commitment 115 which relates to greater protection for wildlife?

Mr. Mullin: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the priority that the Government attach to their programme is a matter for finer minds than mine. They are wrestling with the problem even as I speak. However, the Government take the issues seriously, as I hope to demonstrate if I get the time to do so.
We have proposed new powers for the agencies, the most significant of which will allow them, for the first time, to refuse consent for damaging operations. There would be a right of appeal against refusal, but no expectation that the agency would be obliged to offer compensation for activities for which consent is refused. I believe that that answers some of the points raised by my hon. Friends.
We shall also provide the agencies with new powers to combat neglect and to address management issues, so as to secure the positive management that delivers conservation benefits. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) asked about positive management orders on SSSIs, and our new powers to combat neglect anticipate the procedures that he mentioned, including powers for conservation agencies to draw up objectives for positive management on a site and to make an order requiring action to be carried out, subject to appeal to my Department.
We shall introduce increased penalties for damage to SSSIs, and increased powers to require restoration. We shall also introduce additional powers to deal with third party damage, where greater powers and better enforcement are necessary.
We shall provide the agencies with additional powers of entry to land, and more flexible powers to purchase SSSI land compulsorily, although we envisage that both those provisions would be needed to be used only exceptionally. We shall emphasise the responsibilities of public bodies towards special sites and we shall also propose amending the financial guidelines on management agreements issued under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, to move further away from compensating managers for not damaging sites and towards paying for positive management. That deals with another point that has been raised.
We are absolutely clear that further legislation is needed to underpin partnerships and to provide better means of addressing problems. We have proposed significant new powers for the conservation agencies. However, deliberate damage is rare: what we need to address is neglect and unsympathetic management, which is a bigger problem. Legislation alone will not solve all the problems, and we will be looking for a range of other options to deliver our objectives. The National Assembly for Wales will, in many cases, be responsible for deciding how to proceed in Wales.
The majority of sites remain in agricultural use, so that our overall policies for agriculture, including the development and implementation of agri-environment schemes, remain of fundamental importance. The overall outcome of recent negotiations on common agricultural policy reform, to which the hon. Member for Ashford referred, represents a small step—I shall not make too much of this point—in the right direction. It has potential benefits for the environment generally, and for sites of special scientific interest. The Government have consulted widely on the implementation of optional elements of CAP reform in the United Kingdom, including attaching environmental conditions to subsidy payments, and modulating payments to provide additional savings for a limited number of environmental and structural measures.
A significant number of SSSIs are also in wetland habitats, and are often listed as Ramsar sites of international importance, or they may be affected by issues concerning the quality and availability of water resources. We are fully aware of the public concern over the effects of over-abstraction of water from wetlands. We have asked water companies to include environmental and quality improvement programmes costing around £8 billion in their business plans for the years 2000–05, including measures to deal with the adverse effects of effluent or over-abstraction on 102 SSSIs.
The debate today has also referred to several other matters, including, for example, planning and development. We confirmed in the framework document that we would clarify planning policy guidance to reflect the national importance of sites of special scientific interest, with a strong presumption against development that would significantly affect the sites. The test has already been introduced, in relation to trunk roads, through the transport White Paper. We propose issuing for consultation a revision of planning policy guidance note 9 on nature conservation and planning next spring.
In the short time left to me, I shall deal with the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley about Thorne and Hatfield. She graphically expressed her concern about several sites, but especially about Thorne and Hatfield moors in her constituency. Let me emphasise that we acknowledge the international importance of the best examples of our peatland resources. They will be included in the Natura 2000 series, through which we deliver our obligations under the European Union's nature conservation directives, or they will be listed as Ramsar sites—wetlands of international significance.
The habitats regulations will also require a review of all extant permissions and consents—including planning permissions that were granted prior to their inclusion in the list of candidate special areas of conservation, or their classification as a special area of protection for birds, under the birds directive. Where the review, which will be carried out by the local planning authority, concludes that the integrity of the site is likely to be adversely affected, the consent will have to be modified or revoked, unless Ministers decide that an imperative reason outweighs the conservation interest.

Caroline Flint: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Mullin: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will not, because I have a lot more to say about the points in which she is interested. I shall do my best to say as much about them as possible, although I may have to write to her about some matters.
We drew attention to those obligations and associated procedures in our statement of 12 May 1998. Where permission is revoked or modified, there is an entitlement to compensation, and the Government have indicated that they would consider reimbursing the local authority where compensation costs were high. We have sought advice from English Nature on the effect of existing permissions on a number of international sites and are considering that carefully.
Part of Thorne moors is already a candidate special area of conservation and English Nature is giving further consideration to whether it should be listed as a Ramsar wetland. I am also pleased to confirm that, in the last few days, English Nature began consulting owners and occupiers about the classification of parts of Thorne and Hatfield moors as a special protection area for birds. We shall seek to reach an early decision, once consultations are completed and we receive its report. Classification of the site as a special protection area for birds will inevitably lead to a review of the permission under the habitats regulations.
In addition, the Government are urgently considering ways of expediting reviews on candidate special areas of conservation in the light of the continuing delays in the


process, to which I have already referred, for drawing up a final list of sites for the Atlantic biogeographical region, of which the United Kingdom forms a part. I cannot say more about that today, but I hope to be able to do so very soon.
I now come to the subject of peat. Wider issues—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am afraid that the Minister will have to write to his hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on the remaining points. His time is up. We now come to the next debate.

Hospital Waiting Times (Avon)

Mr. Steve Webb: In desperation, I have initiated a debate on orthopaedic out-patient waiting times. I feel able to achieve something for my constituents on many of the topics about which I receive letters, but on this subject, I feel helpless.
In the few years that I have been a Member of Parliament, I have received a stream of letters, telling me of increasingly outrageous waiting times. I do my best—I write to the trust, to the health authority and to the Government—but, every month, the letters keep coming. Therefore, I am grateful for the opportunity that the debate gives me to raise the issue of where the buck stops—with the Minister of State on behalf of the Department of Health.
I start with a brief excerpt from a letter from a general practitioner in Yate in my constituency, who copied to me his letter to the Secretary of State dated 18 October. It reads:
I have an 81 year old patient who was referred for an Orthopaedic appointment in June 1998…he…heard nothing…We…phoned the hospital who told us that
the likely date for his
appointment was April 2000; he will have therefore waited 22 months.
That gentleman will have to wait 22 months to see a consultant, perhaps to be placed on a waiting list. I have written to all the bodies involved. All express concern, but little happens.
I shall cite two cases that show how people on the ground are experiencing these delays. My constituent Mrs. Evans, a civil servant from Chipping Sodbury, now gets around on crutches because of her orthopaedic problems. She would like to stop work because of the pain that she is in, but she has received a letter saying that she will have to wait 78 weeks to see a consultant. She cannot afford to take 78 weeks off work, so she is getting by by working part-time, in pain. She told me that she feels betrayed because she paid national insurance when she could and now, when she needs the system, it is not there.
I told Mrs. Evans—admittedly, with some trepidation—that 78 weeks was a relatively short wait. It did not help her to hear that 104 weeks was the norm, and that 78 weeks seemed a step in the right direction. However, as the chief executive of the relevant trust wrote to me about Mrs. Evans,
waiting times for orthopaedic outpatient appointments…continue to be unacceptable.
The trust does not deny that. The chief executive was
delighted that the Trust was able to appoint a 5th orthopaedic consultant",
as a result of which waiting times have come down from 104 to 78 weeks. The chief executive says:
I…acknowledge that a reduction in waiting times from 104 weeks to 78 is scant comfort for the patient,
and that there is a health authority problem. She says:
the area served by Avon Health Authority is under-resourced in terms of orthopaedic surgery".
Ominously, she continues:
however, there are no resources earmarked for further investment in orthopaedic services, and there are no plans to provide additional capacity for orthopaedic outpatient appointments.


Therefore, waiting times have shortened slightly, but, this summer, the trust chief executive told me that it was a health authority problem, and that there were no plans for extra investment. When we write to the trust, the trust does its best, but says that the health authority is responsible.
Having seen that waiting times were shortening slightly, I was shocked to receive a letter from a constituent, Mrs. Aze, who sent me a letter from the trust, saying that she would have to wait not 78 weeks and not 104 weeks, but between 115 and 125 weeks—nearly two and a half years. Mrs. Aze says:
I am approaching 70 years of age…my GP…considers that I am in need of an examination in the near future to prevent me from becoming a cripple…It is obscene to send…a letter to a patient who has been referred to you for ACTION",
saying that it will be 125 weeks before she is seen.
Mrs. Aze has found out that it would cost £8,000 to obtain a private operation. She cannot afford that. She has been told that she could get a private consultation to skip the 125-week wait, and then wait for an NHS operation, but the health authority, understandably, does not encourage that because, although it would solve one person's problem, it would not tackle the underlying problem.
Not surprisingly, the Aze family wrote to everyone that they could think of. On 29 October, they wrote to the previous Secretary of State. He did not reply, of course; he passed the letter to the south-west region of the national health service executive. Its parliamentary business officer wrote:
how sorry I was to read about your wife's wait for an outpatient appointment…The Government sets a standard waiting time of 26 weeks".
We all fell about when we heard that, because it is nothing like the experience of real people. The letter continues:
clearly North Bristol NHS Trust are not keeping to this target,"—
we had noticed that—
so I will refer your letter to
the chief executive of the health authority. For what?
I will ask her to write to you with an explanation for the delay".
So the constituent writes to the Government, assuming that the Government have a hand in the matter. The Government pass the problem down to the regional branch, and the region says that the trust is not performing and that it will ask the health authority to explain why. Understandably, the constituent feels slightly dissatisfied with that response.
I know that action is being taken. The health authority has set up an investigation into out-patient waiting times, which will take 12 to 18 months to complete. Why is that only now being done? I was elected two and a half years ago, and within weeks was receiving letters saying that out-patient waiting times would be 104 weeks. Why has the subject only now acquired urgency? Why did not the investigation start two years ago?
In August, I received a letter from Avon health authority. We seem to be exchanging many letters on the topic. After telling me about all the money that the Government are putting in, which does not seem to be making much impact, the geographical director of the health authority says:
monitoring of the service agreement between ourselves and the…Trust shows an under-performance of 2,203 new outpatient attendances. We remain in very close dialogue with the Trust on this issue.

I would like to be a fly on the wall and listen to that dialogue.
However, let us get this straight. The trust says that Avon health authority area is under-resourced in terms of orthopaedics—which is true, given the number of orthopaedic consultants per head of the elderly population. Therefore, the trust says that the authority is part of the problem. The authority says that the trust is under-performing. The Government say, "We will get the health authority to write to you to explain why the trust is not performing".
My plea is, will someone, somewhere, take responsibility for this disgraceful situation? I have been writing these letters for two years, and two years is a fairly typical wait in my authority area to see a consultant. I am impatient for action. My constituents are impatient. That is why I have raised the topic today.
Where do we go from here? What does the future look like? This morning, I spoke at length to the chief executive of North Bristol NHS trust. She tells me that the case of Mrs. Aze has moved on considerably. She tells me that Mrs. Aze was told that she would have to wait between 115 and 125 weeks because she had been referred by her GP to a specialist orthopaedic surgeon; that she has now been placed on the list of the fifth orthopaedic surgeon—who, I understand, is more of a generalist—and that therefore she will wait not 125 weeks, but perhaps 25 weeks. I should like to think that her waiting time has been shortened by 100 weeks as a result of my intervention, but I doubt it. However, that does not change the underlying issue.
In response to my debate, and in response to my publicly raising the issue locally, the health authority still admits that 70 weeks is a typical wait. Although Mrs. Aze was an extreme case of someone who wanted to see a specialist orthopaedic consultant, and although this individual case is nearer resolution than it was, Mrs. Evans and many other people are still no nearer resolution.
What of the future? The new Secretary of State has said that heart and cancer treatment is a priority for him, and of course those issues are vital to people who are affected. Are those new priorities to be funded from a fixed cake?
I know that the Government can tell us about the £21 billion; we can all argue whether that is a meaningful figure. There is money going into the health service, but does the designation of heart disease and cancer priorities mean more money for those specialties, and not less for the rest of the NHS? Or is money to be directed from less glamorous parts towards those high-profile and important concerns? If the latter is so, will orthopaedic waiting times in Avon rise rather than fall? Yes, heart disease and cancer matter, but if funding for them will come from a fixed overall cake, will the unglamorous be left behind?

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): That is stupid.

Mr. Webb: The Minister says that that is stupid, but we must be clear whether the Government's declared new priorities are to be funded at the expense of other parts of the NHS, or whether new money, over and above the amount that had already been announced when the new Secretary of State took his post, has been found. If it has not, the less headline-grabbing, glamorous priorities will be left aside.
What do my constituents have in common? What about my 81-year-old constituent about whom the GP from Yate wrote, or Mrs. Aze, who is nearly 70 years old? Are elderly people who need routine operations such as hip operations to be forced to wait for years and, in the words of Mrs. Aze, left to become a cripple?
This debate is about out-patient waiting times in Avon, not just orthopaedic services; there are many more horror stories. I plead with the Minister to spare us from bombardment by a raft of statistics on all the money that is being invested in the NHS. We have heard it all before. My constituents hear it on the television time and again, and write to me asking, "What do these people know?" We are told that waiting times are falling, but I receive letters about 70 or 100-week waits, and about how my constituents must either take a year and a half off work or wait two years at the age of 70 or 80 for treatment. Such matters need urgent attention.
My plea is for the Minister to accept that the buck stops with him. The trust has been investigated several times by the Government and various departments, but its consultants are working their socks off. There is no suggestion that they are not pulling their weight. Indeed, the trust chief executive suggests that some may be working too hard.
When will people waiting for orthopaedic appointments in the Avon health authority have to wait only 26 weeks? Will the Minister please tell us today when he expects the Government's target on orthopaedic out-patient waiting times to be met? Will he accept responsibility for the NHS—not blame the trust or the health authority, but accept that the buck stops with him? Will he ensure that, the next time that someone writes to his Department about such problems, they are not fobbed off and told how concerned the Government are, but how somebody else has been asked to explain? I have no answer for my constituents when they ask why they must wait 100 weeks to see a consultant just to be put on a waiting list. I have no answer; I hope that the Minister does.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on securing a debate on a subject of great importance to his constituents. I shall cover the Government's overall waiting list policy, and the measures that we are taking nationally to improve patient access to NHS services, and then look at the level of Government investment in both the national health service nationally and the Avon health authority, and the measures that are being taken in Avon to reduce the number of patients who are waiting longer than 13 weeks to see a consultant.
It is important to say at the outset that I recognise, as everybody does, that waiting a long time to see a consultant is distressing and worrying for patients and their families, particularly if people are in pain. That is why we as a Government are committed to tackling out-patient waiting times. As the constituency cases that the hon. Gentleman brought to the attention of the House make clear, Avon health authority has major problems with long out-patient waits in certain specialties. Considerable effort will have to be made to address that

problem. In fairness, it is important to emphasise that the extremely long waiting times that he raised are the exception. The average first out-patient appointment waiting time is the same as that in Avon health authority: seven weeks.
Waiting times and lists are a key concern of NHS patients, which we recognise. In modernising the NHS, we are determined to make access to services faster and more convenient. We are committed to reducing both the number of people waiting and the time that they wait. We are working to improve access for all NHS users.
We are also introducing important, special measures for patients for whom rapid access to the NHS is vital, such as those who are suspected of suffering from one of the big killers of modern times—cancer. The new focus on diseases such as cancer and coronary heart disease that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced is within the context of achieving our targets for waiting lists and waiting times. It is not an alternative.
Yes, of course all that we do in the NHS is funded by the resources that we make available to it, including the additional £21 billion investment. However, it is right for us to set our overall aims—as we have very clearly on waiting lists—and, within that, to make clear our targets.
It was disappointing that the hon. Gentleman had nothing to say about the hard work of staff in Avon. As he will know, we have already instituted a two-week wait for patients who are referred urgently with suspected breast cancer. The Avon health community has responded marvellously to the challenge of meeting the breast cancer waiting targets. The whole health community can be proud of the out-patient waiting list. In the first quarter of this year, 100 per cent of patients were seen by a consultant within two weeks when the urgent referral was received from the GP within 24 hours.
The hon. Gentleman would have painted a fairer picture of the work of staff in Avon health community had he referred to that considerable success. The staff are excellent, and I am sure that, when the two-week wait for urgent referrals is extended to cover all cancers next year, Avon will once again be among the leaders in achieving that standard.
We have tackled in-patient waiting lists: the list has fallen by 200,000 over the past year, and is now 69,000 below the level of March 1997. We are on track to achieve our manifesto commitment to reduce waiting lists by 100,000 from the level that we inherited.
This year, we are applying the same determination and good practice to reducing waiting times for out-patients. Last year, NHS trusts saw 175,000 new out-patients. This year, we expect the NHS to see more than a third of a million more new out-patients. That will mean that, in 1990–2000, more than 11 million new out-patients will be seen—for the first time in the history of the NHS.
In September, following a top-level meeting with NHS staff and Health Ministers, the Prime Minister announced a package of measures to tackle out-patient waiting times, including a £30 million boost to out-patient services, tough new monitoring of performance and the extension of the booked admissions programme.
Money from the £30 million waiting lists and times performance fund will go directly to the NHS to help tackle out-patient waiting times. It will allow the NHS to focus on tackling problems locally, providing additional


out-patient clinics, employing additional staff and investing in new medical equipment. It will also help to fund sustainable solutions, modernising out-patient services and access to the NHS.
The national patients access team, which this Government established, is in the lead in taking forward such initiatives. It is providing intensive programme management for the booked admissions programme, and runs a visit programme to advise trusts and health authorities on how to reduce waiting lists and times and ensure widespread adoption of best practice. I understand that NPAT visited North Bristol NHS trust and made several suggestions, which the trust is beginning to implement. It is also assisting in the review of orthopaedic services across Avon.
The booked admissions programme is part of the Government's on-going commitment to modernise the health service, to make it more dependable, and to enable the NHS of the future to provide immediate access to dependable health advice, same-day testing and diagnosis, and prompt and convenient access to care and treatment.
We announced the first wave of 24 booked admissions pilot schemes in September 1998, with an investment of £5 million. A further £20 million is being invested this year in a significant expansion of the programme. The Royal United hospital in Bath was one of the hospitals in that first wave, and has received an NHS beacon award for the excellence of its pilot scheme.
In September, the Prime Minister announced a further 60 new pilot sites, taking the total number of people benefiting from the programme to 2 million. Three of those schemes are in Avon—at the Weston Area NHS trust, the North Bristol NHS trust and the Royal United Hospital Bath NHS trust. Since that announcement by the Prime Minister, the programme has been extended to cancer services in order to streamline services and minimise delays for patients with suspected or diagnosed cancer.
Cancer services in Avon, together with those in Somerset and Wiltshire, will benefit from an additional £500,000 to develop a scheme for booked admissions. That will enable patients whom their GP suspects of having cancer to receive the earliest possible appointment with a specialist. It will avoid delays between different treatments and enable care to be carefully co-ordinated.
As I mentioned, to underpin the Government's programme for the modernisation of the NHS, we are spending more than ever before on the health service. The comprehensive spending review provides £17 billion for the NHS in England over the next three years. That is the biggest cash injection in the history of the NHS.
The money is now reaching local health authorities. Avon health authority will this year receive £582.5 million—a cash increase of £36.5 million or 6.69 per cent. That gives Avon the highest level of growth in the south-west region, and includes almost £5 million from the modernisation fund specifically to target waiting lists. In addition, the health authority has received £5.6 million in targeted funding in areas such as staff recruitment and retention, mental health, cancer waiting times and nurse prescribing.
We are not neglecting the fabric of the NHS. As part of the largest capital programme in the history of the NHS, it is forecast that the total capital spend in Avon will be more than £83 million. That includes £2.64 million from

the modernisation fund to improve the accident and emergency departments at all the major acute trusts in Avon.
Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I pay tribute to the staff of the NHS in Avon, who last year treated 11,331 more elective cases than in the previous year, an increase of 11.9 per cent. They also dealt with a growth in the number of emergency admissions of 3,800 or 4.5 per cent.
However, there is no doubt that Avon's performance in certain specialties is worse than that of the NHS as a whole. I am happy to acknowledge that Health Ministers must take responsibility for what happens in the health service, but, in the delivery of services, there is a huge responsibility on everyone working in the NHS in Avon to work together to tackle the problems and bring the standards in Avon up to the levels achieved in other parts of the country. We will support Avon through the national patients access team, the finance and additional measures that I have set out and the booked admissions programme, but it is the local NHS that must deliver.
As I stated at the start of my speech, the health authority and the trusts recognise that the current position is unsatisfactory. This year, the health authority and trusts have planned to reduce substantially the number of patients waiting more than 13 weeks for an appointment. Although the problem of long waiters is common to all the major hospitals in Avon, it is most marked in the United Bristol Healthcare NHS trust and the North Bristol NHS trust.
I can confirm that in the case of Mrs. Aze, who was sent an appointment date of 125 weeks, her consultant wrote to her GP on 19 October and she will be seen by another consultant with shorter waiting times.
On the position in the key hospitals, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that there has been a new management team at the North Bristol NHS trust since its creation earlier this year. We are looking to the team to provide a clear management lead in tackling the problem of long lists. The trust has already taken various steps to improve the position. Extra staff have been appointed and extra clinics are being established. Additional measures have been and will be taken to reduce the number of patients waiting more than 13 weeks.

Mr. Webb: I am grateful to the Minister and I do not want to interrupt his flow. I hope that in the remaining four or five minutes, he will address my specific question. When will the target waiting time of 26 weeks for out-patient orthopaedic appointments be hit in Avon? Given all that the Minister has said and all the money that he told us is being put in, he must be confident that that target will be hit soon. When?

Mr. Denham: There has been a long period of poor service and underinvestment, which has led to the length of waiting lists that the hon. Gentleman described and which I acknowledged. My priority, which must also be the priority for the trusts and those working in them, is to get a grip on the problem and to make sure that waiting times are reduced. I shall set out the measures through which that must be done. We start from a position that is worse than that experienced in the NHS as a whole. People working in the health service in Avon must get a grip on that.
Various measures have been and will be taken to reduce the number of patients waiting more than 13 weeks. For example, an additional two new consultant clinics per week in general surgery have been established at Frenchay hospital, with additional clinics at Southmead hospital.
In orthopaedics, which is of particular concern to the hon. Gentleman, the North Bristol NHS trust has appointed a new consultant and will use money from the performance fund to appoint additional physiotherapists as clinical assistants. The trust has also agreed low back pain referral protocols with GPs to allow direct referral to a physiotherapist, rather than to a consultant.
In ophthalmology, another problem area, a new consultant has been appointed from October this year. A new locum consultant gynaecologist appointment is being made from January next year. It is intended to use money from the performance fund to develop plans to provide four nurse practitioner-led clinics a week doing minor procedures to release consultants to see additional out-patients. A new staff-grade doctor in ear, nose and throat is being appointed from January. New clinics are being established in plastic surgery, rheumatology, dermatology and neurology, some of which it is intended to support through the use of performance fund moneys.
The trust is examining various measures to improve the way in which out-patient services are provided and to ensure that the best use is made of out-patient clinics by reducing the number of non-attenders and by filling vacant out-patient slots. The trust is engaged in discussion with other NHS trusts identified as "beacons" for good waiting list management to ensure that the trust identifies best practice and applies it to the local situation.
The United Bristol Healthcare NHS trust intends to increase activity in ophthalmology, dermatology, neurology, dental specialties and ENT. This activity will be targeted at long-waiters. The trust is working with local primary care groups and considering the increased use of physiotherapy screening for orthopaedic out-patients to ensure that patients are seen by the most appropriate professional. In addition, the trust is working to ensure that its management of out-patient appointments process is in accord with best practice.
Orthopaedics is the specialty with the longest wait to see a consultant. Over the past five years, the Avon health authority has invested an additional £5.1 million in improving the orthopaedic service. As I said, the health authority is conducting a wide-ranging review of orthopaedic services across the Avon area to inform its funding decisions for next year. It will be assisted in that by the national patients access team.
In conclusion, I believe that action taken by the Avon health authority and the local NHS trusts will lead to a reduction in the number of patients waiting more than 13 weeks and, more importantly, a reduction in the maximum length of time taken to see a consultant. Current times are far too long. The regional office of the NHS Executive has carried out an assessment of the action plans prepared by the health community, and is satisfied that the waiting list objectives will be met. We want patients in Avon to wait less time to see a consultant in future, and will continue to work with the local NHS to achieve that aim.

Health (Lowestoft)

1 pm

Mr. Bob Blizzard: I shall start with a rather grisly fact. If one lives in certain parts of Lowestoft one has a 60 to 80 per cent. greater chance of dying before the age of 75 than the average individual living in Suffolk. That fact is contained in the 1999 report of Suffolk's director of public health. That is a shocking statistic for those who live in the two wards concerned as well as for the whole town of Lowestoft, the county of Suffolk and anyone who cares about health inequality. It reveals what is meant by the term "health inequality".
The director has made it clear in his report that there is a strong association between high death rates and deprivation. The two wards, together with a ward in central Ipswich, have the highest standard mortality ratios in Suffolk. They also have the highest levels of deprivation and the highest number of people on income support—about 25 per cent. The director's report tells us that Lowestoft as a whole has the highest premature death rate of any town in Suffolk and that it is significantly above the Suffolk average. All the information and statistics in the report are based on research from the years 1995–98.
Unfortunately, this is nothing new. In the director's 1997 report, which was based on statistics from the years 1987–95, the same three wards were at the top of Suffolk's standard mortality ratio. The report begins:
Overall, Suffolk people are amongst the most fortunate residents of this country when it comes to health—or at least to death! In any one year a Suffolk resident of any age has, on average, an 8 per cent. lower chance of dying than the average individual of the same age living in England and Wales.
However, the report goes on to say:
This encouraging overall picture for Suffolk does, however, conceal some marked variations in death rates within the county…The three most deprived wards in Suffolk…have deprivation levels akin to those found in many inner city areas of the UK's big cities. They also have the most significantly high SMRs in Suffolk and the highest levels of unemployment…If you are amongst the 10 per cent. of the population living in the wards in Suffolk with the highest death rates you are almost twice as likely as the 10 per cent. living in the best wards, to die before age 75.
The director was so concerned that he called the report, "Time for action".
Sadly, and unacceptably, as I have pointed out, the 1999 report reveals that things have not improved and that, if anything, they have got worse. I spoke to the director this week and he is concerned that things my have got worse. The SMR for the Kirkley ward was 143 in 1997 and it is now 184. The SMR for the Harbour ward was 138 in 1997 and is now 164.
I have looked at other figures from the Office for National Statistics, which allows primary care groups to compare their death rates. It uses a measure known as the death, age, sex standardisation rate. Those figures show the Lowestoft PCG area substantially higher than all other Suffolk PCGs.
We see the same inequalities in mental health. The director's 1999 report shows that Lowestoft's standard admission rate for psychiatric specialties is 131. The next highest is Ipswich with 109 and the lowest rate in the county is 77. Again, the director confirms the link with deprivation.
Health inequalities such as these are immoral and unacceptable, even more so when one lives in a community that is at the wrong end of the statistical table. I am pleased that this Government are the first Government to make one of their two overall priorities the reduction of health inequalities to narrow the health gap. Few communities will appreciate that more than Lowestoft. However, if it was time for action in 1997, people want to know why things have not improved in 1999. What has happened?
I have looked at Suffolk's health improvement programme. The first programme is just a catalogue of what has been happening, but we must recognise that it will take time for health authorities to develop their programmes. As they are developed in the future, they will need to be more focused on specific priorities for addressing health inequalities, with a clear strategic direction.
It is clear that we need a two-pronged approach. First, we must tackle the causes of ill health. The Kirkley area of Lowestoft has been designated a single regeneration budget area. That funding is being used for a healthy Kirkley initiative, drawing together public bodies carrying out community based work. There is improvement in housing conditions and enhancement of the physical environment. A training centre is up and running to help youngsters back to work. That partnership has put in a bid to the new opportunities fund for a healthy living centre. If it is not against protocol, I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), will support the bid.
There is some public disquiet about the rate of progress, but we must recognise that multi-agency work takes time. The new deal is making an impact in Lowestoft, as is the minimum wage legislation, and we fully expect the working families tax credit to help. We had excellent news this summer when the Government awarded Lowestoft assisted area status and designated it as a European objective 2 area from 1 January. All those initiatives will be a huge boost to the employment prospects, economic recovery and future prosperity of the people of Lowestoft. However, it will take some time for them to have an effect, so we must look at the second prong.
Like crime and the causes of crime, while we are dealing with the causes of ill health, we must ensure that the resources are available to treat the existing high levels of ill health. People in Lowestoft have asked whether the director's reports have influenced the spending patterns and distribution of resources in Suffolk. The answer seems to be not at all. The current allocation of resources within the county does not match or relate to the health inequalities. That is a sore point in my constituency. The director reveals that clearly with regard to mental health services in this year's report.
Government policy could not be clearer. The document entitled, "The New NHS modern and dependable" states:
The healthcare needs of the population, including the impact of deprivation, will be the driving force in determining where cash goes. There will be a national formula to set fair shares for the new PCGs as there is now for health authorities. It will be for health authorities to determine the pace of change at which individual PCGs within their area should move towards their fair share.
So far in Suffolk I have seen no such movement.
Suffolk health authority has said that the budgets are tight and difficult. It is not easy to take resources from one part of the county to give to another. Let us be clear. Suffolk health authority has had above inflation rises in Government cash awards. In 1998–99, it was 4.14 per cent. and in 1999–2000, it is 5.5 per cent. It had extra money for the winter difficulties in 1997. It has had extra money for waiting lists and a good share of the modernisation fund. However, it has had only the basic rise in its annual revenue allocation from Government. It has not had any discretionary rise because, as a whole, Suffolk is relatively healthy in national terms. The Suffolk average SMR is 7 to 8 per cent. better than the national average. The Suffolk average for deprivation is quite low.
Government policy is to give greater uplift in resources to the more deprived health authorities to narrow the inequalities between them. The problem faced by Lowestoft is that it is an area of high deprivation suffering huge health inequalities in an otherwise better-off county. How will the Government ensure that their philosophy of addressing health inequalities through differential funding is replicated within a health authority? Is there an allowance for Lowestoft's deprivation currently included in Suffolk health authority's settlement? If so, how much is it? Is there monitoring to see whether that money is directed towards Lowestoft? The authority appears to use an historic roll-over budget rather than redirecting resources. I know that the Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), when he was the Minister of State, wrote to Suffolk health authority about the issue in February 1998.
Before coming to the debate today, I consulted a number of health professionals in Lowestoft. The commonly held view is that the gap has got worse rather than better. Resources were directed towards an acute hospital in another part of the county that had particular problems.
In my discussions, I discovered that there are mounting problems with mental health services. There is restricted access to cognitive behaviour therapy for patients with ME and chronic pain, restricted access for victims of sexual abuse and young people to support and advice services, and, alarmingly, reduced access to the Waveney alcohol and drugs service. That is worrying, as there is a drugs problem in the area to which I have referred.
The plan to develop the locally available renal dialysis service at the local hospital has been abandoned. As a result, some people will have to make the 60-mile return journey to Norwich three times a week for dialysis. That is uncomfortable for any patient, and transport is a particular problem for those suffering deprivation. If my hon. Friend the Minister has not been to East Anglia, I can tell her that 60 miles on East Anglian roads is far worse than 60 miles in other parts of the country. The abandonment of the plan to develop local renal services poses a great problem for my constituents.

Mr. Anthony D. Wright: Is my hon. Friend aware that Norfolk and Suffolk health authorities planned to improve the renal unit at the James Paget hospital, the benefit of which is enjoyed by both our areas? The inability of Suffolk health authority to raise that revenue has scuppered that plan, whereas Norfolk


health authority has introduced proposals that benefit the people who use the renal service in Norwich and at the James Paget hospital.

Mr. Blizzard: My hon. Friend is right. The James Paget hospital has an admirable policy of providing services for both counties. It wants to treat the two counties equitably, but the failure or inability of Suffolk health authority to fund the renal service means that people in both our constituencies are suffering.
We now have a worse problem. Suffolk health authority is undertaking a planning exercise to prepare for a 2 per cent. budget cut across the board to deal with its deficit and in anticipation of its expected settlement for 2000–01. How can we have a 2 per cent. cut and record levels of expenditure through the £21 billion extra money that the Government are putting into the health service? The two are incompatible. Someone will have to explain to people in Suffolk how that can he. Will the Minister look into this matter?
Will the basic increase that Suffolk health authority is expecting be inadequate to cope with unavoidable, rising costs, bearing in mind that it is expecting only the basic uplift? Or is the projected deficit the result of stored-up, longer-standing budgetary problems that pre-date this Government? Whatever it is, people in my area will be dismayed if we suffer a 2 per cent. cut. I ask the Minister to look into how that problem can be overcome and consider a financial remedy.
Even if there has to be a 2 per cent. reduction, it should not be across the board, because then the inequalities in Suffolk would be perpetuated. Government policy requires health authorities to narrow the gap, so how can a reduction be imposed on hard-pressed general practitioners and on the primary and secondary services in Lowestoft that deal with the highest levels of ill health in Suffolk? The policy demands a re-routing of resources in Suffolk to deal with the findings of the director of public health in successive reports. Even with the tightest budget, there must not be an across-the-board response.
Government policy on reducing health inequalities is just what we need in Lowestoft, and it is vital that it is implemented. The new Health Act 1999 gives the Secretary of State new powers to ensure that it is. Will the Minister look into the issues that I have raised, and help Lowestoft to receive its fair share of resources: the share that the appalling statistics and Government policy determine that it should have?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) on securing this debate and on raising the issue of health inequalities, which is a matter of great concern to the Government. He is a powerful advocate for his constituency, and has drawn attention to the problems faced by his constituents in Lowestoft.
The Government are strongly committed to tackling health inequalities. Under the previous Government, health inequalities were barely mentioned, never mind tackled, and the idea that they might be linked to poverty, unemployment or the wider inequalities in society was

anathema to them. The result was that, when we came to office, we inherited a society in which the health gap between rich and poor had continually grown. My hon. Friend makes that case powerfully when he talks about his constituents.
One of the first actions that the Government took was to commission an independent inquiry into health inequalities. Sir Donald Acheson reported that, although average mortality had fallen over the past 50 years, unacceptable health inequalities persisted, and many measures of health showed that inequalities had either stayed the same or had grown and widened in recent decades.
Health is too much of a local lottery. Surrey man can expect to live on average 11 years longer than Manchester man. For women, the difference is nine years. The problem is not just about where people live, but about who they are. Their chances of dying young are significantly higher if they are working class than if they are middle class. The unemployed are twice as likely to suffer from depression as those in work. High blood pressure, smoking and obesity are more prevalent among the low skilled. People in substandard housing are at greater risk of cold and damp. Death rates from coronary heart disease among people living here but who were born in south Asia are 46 per cent. higher for men and 51 per cent. higher for women than the rates for England and Wales as a whole.
People on low incomes are not only more likely to get ill, but are less likely to get the treatment that they need. The highest numbers of heart operations are not in the areas with the highest rates of coronary disease. People in poorer areas are less likely to survive cancer than those in more affluent areas.
In Lowestoft, the pattern is similar. Kirkley and Harbour wards have higher than average unemployment and crime rates. They also have the highest premature death rate, and Kirkley has the highest out-patient referral rate in Suffolk. Those wards also have a 29 per cent. higher rate of emergency admissions than the average for Suffolk. Lower job opportunities, lower incomes, higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse, social exclusion and poverty all take their toll compared with other parts of Suffolk.
My hon. Friend is right when he says that such health inequalities are immoral and unacceptable. They are as unacceptable to the Government as they are to him. In Lowestoft and across the country, the Government are committed to tackling this unfairness.
I want to talk about the action that we are taking to tackle health inequalities, and to try to answer the points made by my hon. Friend. He is right that we need to tackle the underlying causes of ill health, whether it is poverty, unemployment, poor housing or other problems that cut right across every Department, not just the Department of Health. That is why we are raising the income of families with children through the working families tax credit, raising child benefit and the child premium for income support.
The working families tax credit provides extra help to 1.4 million families. Families with children and someone in full-time work will have a minimum income of £200 per week. The Prime Minister has said that we must end child poverty in a generation. We have a long way to go, but these are important steps along the way.
To cut unemployment, we have invested £5 billion in the new deal programmes. We are investing £450 million in sure start to help vulnerable children to make the best possible start in life. Sure start brings together early education, health services, family support and advice to families in low-income areas with children under the age of four.
The Government are also working to tackle pensioner poverty. We are providing a new minimum income guarantee for pensioners worth at least £75 per week for a single pensioner and £116 for couples this financial year, and a winter fuel payment of £100 for every pensioner household. As many pensioners on low incomes will know, sitting in a cold house because they do not have the money to turn up the heating is not good for their health. We are also investing in our poorest communities through projects such as the new deal for communities, the single regeneration budget and sure start. The most powerful way of tackling the ill health of some of our poorest communities will not just involve the health service; it will involve reducing the poverty that caused the problem in the first place. That is why the Kirkley regeneration initiative described by my hon. Friend, which has secured single-regeneration funds for the area, is so important. Its purpose is to tackle local unemployment and deprivation.
All the programmes that I have mentioned will help to tackle some of the underlying causes of ill health. My hon. Friend is right to say that it will be a long process, but we must make a start, and we must do it now. We also need direct action to tackle health inequalities, which is why the Government are currently developing initiatives such as health action zones, healthy living centres and health improvement programmes to improve the health of communities.
One of the programmes in Lowestoft is the "healthy Kirkley" initiative, a community health project which brings together the local NHS trust, the community health council, Waveney district council, Suffolk county council and the local primary care group. Together, those bodies are trying to deal with the symptoms that are so often related to deprivation: depression, isolation, low self-esteem, stress and asthma. The partnership is addressing community needs directly, organising, for instance, a Saturday morning drop-in centre for young parents and a scheme enabling unemployed people to be trained through the renovation of local housing. The initiative will obviously be strengthened by the bid for a healthy living centre, to include the wards of Kirkley and Harbour. My hon. Friend made a powerful case for that bid, and I am sure that the message will be passed on. There are further schemes to deal with the problems of older people, smoking, misuse of drugs and other substances, and domestic violence.
Let me say something about programmes in Suffolk as a whole. The alliance for health in Suffolk, financed by Suffolk county council and Suffolk health authority, has established a healthy schools project to promote a health ethos and environment in schools. The project has links with mental health, coronary heart disease and stroke prevention groups which, as part of the health alliance, aim to reduce health inequalities. All those local partnerships are examples of programmes that we must promote and make effective throughout the country if we are to have an impact on the root causes of ill health and health inequality.
We must also consider what our health services can do more directly. That applies to health authorities, trusts, primary care groups and other health partners. My hon. Friend expressed anxiety about the allocation of resources to Suffolk health authority, the distribution of resources in Suffolk and the impact on inequality. I can tell him for a start that the Government have commissioned a review of NHS resource allocation, which is now under way. A key objective is for the way in which resources are divided across the country to contribute to a reduction in avoidable health inequalities.
The Government believe that resources for health care should go where needs are greatest. At national level, we take relative need into account when allocating money to health authorities, so that we can distribute more additional resources to the areas in greatest need. Last year, all health authorities received a minimum increase of 1.67 per cent., and additional growth funds were aimed at the health authorities in greatest need.
As my hon. Friend said, Suffolk health authority received a 5.5 per cent. increase in its budget this year, which represents a real increase 2.9 per cent. in its power to spend money on health services for people in the area. That compares with real increases of 1.35 per cent. last year, 1.9 per cent. in 1997, only 0.5 per cent. in 1996, and a mere 0.06 per cent. in 1995, under the last Government. Suffolk has received funds from the modernisation fund for waiting lists, mental health treatment, lung and colorectal cancer and information technology.
I am aware that the health authority is running a deficit this year, and is now planning how to recover its balance by 1 April 2000, which it is required to do by the regional office. How the authority allocates its resources to achieve that balance must be a matter for local discussion; nevertheless, I expect the authority, the primary care groups and all the local health partners to take account of health inequalities and deprivation during that discussion. I am very interested in what my hon. Friend said in that context, and I will pursue the matter.
I understand that the 2 per cent. mentioned by my hon. Friend is not an across-the-board cut. If he wants to discuss that further, I shall be happy to talk to him, because, as I have said, I believe that health authorities must take account of health inequalities.
Health authorities, including the Suffolk authority, are now expected to take account of such inequalities, and to draw up plans for improving the health of local populations. This is the first time that all health authorities have led the preparation of comprehensive and cross-sector health improvement programmes. My hon. Friend asked what the Department could do to ensure that the programmes included action on health inequalities and areas of deprivation. I can tell him that the Department will provide guidance on the setting of local targets to measure progress in the reduction of health inequalities, and on assisting health authorities.
I understand that the development of Suffolk's health improvement programme involved health services, social services, education and housing services, and many of the other agencies and groups involved in health issues. The plan of action for improving health in 1999–2000 has identified health inequalities as one of its five priorities, the others being coronary heart disease, cancer, accident prevention and mental health. Those are important aspects of the national health strategy, which will have a considerable impact on the health of Suffolk residents.
The primary care group in Lowestoft is concentrating on health inequalities and mental health issues. It is currently working with key stakeholders to produce a primary care investment plan, which I understand will be finalised soon. Taken together, the health improvement programmes and the primary care investment plans should deliver a comprehensive range of targeted measures to tackle health priorities both countywide and in local communities.
The Government are also taking broader action across the NHS, which should help to tackle health inequalities not just in Suffolk, but throughout the country. The decision to place cancer, heart disease and mental health problems among our top priorities also constitutes an attack on health inequalities. After all, the people who are most likely to die prematurely of cancer, or to have heart attacks under the age of 65, are those on low incomes. The death rate from coronary heart disease is three times higher among unskilled men than among professionals.
We have charged the new cancer director, Professor Mike Richards, with assessing the wide variations in cancer care and cancer survival rates across the country, and with drawing up a strategy to end the national lottery in cancer care. It simply is not fair that where a person lives, or who a person is, should affect the treatment that that person receives, as well as his or her chances of getting cancer in the first place.
My hon. Friend asked what the Government could do nationally to raise standards in every area. The national service frameworks that we are currently developing to deal with coronary heart disease, mental illness, the problems of older people and diabetes will reflect the need to tackle inequalities, and will ensure that national guidance will enable every area to improve the health of its population.
Tackling health inequalities will require determination on many fronts. For too long, the main problem has been securing official recognition of those inequalities. The NHS will be a key player, but not the only player. We shall have to work in partnership with other organisations; but the Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that everyone has a fair chance of leading a healthy life, regardless of where they live and regardless of social class, ethnicity and gender. That means tackling the causes of health inequalities, but it also means modernising our health services, so that the NHS becomes a truly national service in which patients can have fair access to consistently high quality and prompt treatment throughout the country.
We have a long way to go if we are to reduce health inequalities in Britain, but we are making plans in order to start making a difference now.

Newtown Common

Sir George Young: I welcome the opportunity to raise the issue of the ownership of Newtown common. Until recently, the subject would not have generated much public interest, but, because of the activities of a property dealer trying to get people to part with substantial sums, the ownership of the common and the obscure and outdated legislation that surrounds it deserve the House's attention. No one should have to go through what my constituents are going through.
I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. He brings with him a well-earned reputation for fighting for justice, often against long legal odds.
The debate is about a battle between 180 constituents who live on, or around Newtown common, and Bakewell Management. Just over 100 houses are involved, which are located on, or near the common. They are owned by owner-occupiers—not all of whom are well off—who bought the houses having undertaken all the usual searches through solicitors. Not one search revealed any liability of the type that is now claimed. Since time immemorial, they have driven the short distances to and from their homes to the main road.
One typical couple bought their house in 1971 and have been driving to and from it ever since. They paid off the mortgage in 1991. The husband is 70 years old. His wife is 61. Both have retired. The value of the house is now estimated to be £180,000. They have little capital.
Mr. Merton Vaslet, who is aged 80, has lived in his house and used the Newtown common roads for 36 years. He is quoted as saying:
I have crossed Newtown Common quite happily until now. Then I'm told I don't have access to my own home".
Dr. Stevenson, another home owner who has used the common roads for 28 years, said that residents were prepared to go to the High Court to block the claim. Others have lived in the area even longer; one lady moved there more than 60 years ago. At no stage had any of them been invited to pay any money for accessing their homes—until a few weeks ago.
Let me introduce the second party—Mr. Michael Farrow and his company, Bakewell Management. In 1986, a company named Historic Records Agency, whose managing director is Mr. Farrow, bought the title "Lord of the Manor of Newtown" from the Earl of Carnarvon for £4,200. Mr. Farrow proceeded to remove a reference to wastes and commons in the conveyance and sold the title for £12,000. Claiming ownership of Newtown common, he transferred it from the Historic Records Agency to himself and then to his wife, who in turn transferred it to a company named Bakewell Management. That company now claims ownership of the common and has applied to the Land Registry to validate that.
Mr. Farrow tried to register the common with the Land Registry in 1988, objections were made in 1990 and the application was cancelled in 1995. However, in July 1997, Mr. Farrow reapplied. On 15 April 1999, an advertisement was written by the Land Registry offering 14 days in which to lodge complaints. Should Mr. Farrow be successful in his application, he will claim to have the


authority to start to charge people for something that they cannot avoid doing, but have never had to pay for before: getting to their own front door.
Mr. Farrow wishes to charge residents who use the common to get home a fee for the privilege. He is demanding 6 per cent. of the value of their home. What is even worse is that his chartered surveyors, a company named Deal Varney, which has since resigned from the case, had given the residents an ultimatum. I quote from a letter to residents:
we are instructed, under the terms of the amnesty, the owners will accept 6 per cent. of the open market value providing agreement is reached before the 15th November 1999".
Bearing in mind the fact that Mr. Farrow is yet to be registered as the owner, residents have to decide between paying him 6 per cent. of the value of their homes by 15 November, and standing their ground, risking the fee rising to 10 per cent. or more—a figure was mentioned in the same letter. Many of the residents cannot afford such a sum and will be forced to sell and move elsewhere. The practice might have been appropriate from the feudal sheriff of Nottingham. There is no place for it in 1999.
I am delighted that the residents have joined together in an association that is led by Tim Kelleher. I am grateful to Doug Ellis, to his wife Liz, who is the clerk of the parish council, and to Councillor John Clegg, who represents Newtown Common on Basingstoke and Deane district council, for all their support in mobilising a campaign to oppose Mr. Farrow.
What is the legislative foundation of Bakewell Management's claim? Is it valid? If it is, should the law be changed? Section 193 (1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 states that, if a deed of public access is signed by the owner of the common, that allows the common to be publicly used for "air and exercise". The signing of the deed automatically triggers a ban on vehicles passing over the common, unless the landowner expressly gives permission.
Under the Road Traffic Act 1930, it is an offence to drive more than a short way off a highway on to a common without lawful authority. However, in a local byelaw, there is a condition under which that ban must not apply. It clearly states that the ban is not intended to stop
the use by any vehicle on any road on the Common for the purpose of travelling to or from any property to which the Common affords the sole means of vehicular access".
Mr. Farrow seeks to exploit a loophole in the law, by virtue of the fact that
a by-law cannot be made or legally interpreted in such a way as to overrule a public statute".
That is an obvious example of the contradictions that occur in the confusing field of law, but I am surprised that such a blatant statement allowing vehicles to be driven over commons to reach properties can apparently be bypassed and ignored.
As I speak, there is still no confirmed landowner and the evidence is conflicting. The residents who use, and always have used, the common to reach their homes bought their houses having fully researched the position. Now, it is as if another £25,000 were being added retrospectively to the price.
Mr. Farrow, who invested £4,200, sold the title of "Lord of the Manor of Newtown" for £12,000. I have no quarrel with that. If someone wants to be Lord of the

Manor of Newtown, that is fine with me and no harm is done to anyone else. However, Mr. Farrow now wants about £500,000 from my constituents. When I took up their case, as any other hon. Member would have done, he wrote to me:
Depending on the circumstances and how much loss the company suffers because those who were going to contract with the company did not do so as a result of your statements, they could give rise to a legal action against you".
I can look after myself, but not all my constituents can. I cannot understand anyone going to the lengths that I have described to enrich themselves at the expense of my constituents.
I turn to the role of the Government. These are my questions to the Minister. First, as a Member of Parliament, if not as a Minister, can he understand the anger and fear of those of my constituents who find themselves in the predicament that I have outlined?
Secondly, does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in this day and age, people should not be held to ransom in that way, when they have done all the searches and used all the right professionals?
Thirdly, where has the Land Registry got to in processing the application?
Fourthly, if the Land Registry has no option, does the Minister agree that the law should be changed, so that residents in Newtown will not be disadvantaged if they do not succumb to Mr. Farrow's demands, but will continue to enjoy the rights that everyone thought they enjoyed?
Fifthly, what legislative changes would be necessary? The 1955 royal commission on commons recommended the establishment of statutory registers for all common land, including a record of the rights exercisable over it and its ownership. It was proposed that there should be new statutory management schemes for, and a universal right of public access to, common land. In the event, it was decided to implement the recommendations in two stages, the first being the enactment of the Commons Registration Act 1965, with its scheme of statutory registers. The second stage, dealing with statutory management schemes and the principle of a universal right of public access to common land, was never implemented. It is widely recognised that the 1965 Act was not entirely adequate to give effect to its original purposes. It has been frequently criticised by the judiciary.
It is, therefore, clear that fresh legislation is necessary to deal with not only the matters originally envisaged, but deficiencies, anomalies and injustices that have been highlighted since the 1965 Act came into force—not just those in Newtown Common, but those in other parts of the country, including Surrey Heath; I see my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) in his place. The legislation should provide that when there has been no charge or restriction by the owner of a common for vehicular access across a common, and when—in the 60 years from 1925 to 1985, or for a period of at least 20 years, or since the house was built—the access has formed the vehicular access to a private house, there is presumed to be a grant of vehicular access from the owner of the common to the owner of a private house accessed across it. It should provide also that neither the owner of the common nor his successors in title may in future charge for vehicular or other access or put restrictions on the access across the common.
I hope that I have carried the Minister with me so far, and that, if I have, the Government will either introduce the changes themselves, by amending a suitable


Government Bill—perhaps the right to roam legislation, if it is introduced—or give a smooth passage to a suitable private Member's Bill seeking the same objective.
I believe that I have outlined a real injustice, which I ask the Minister to put right.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): I am grateful to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) for raising this issue and giving me the opportunity to present the Government's response, and also for his kind opening remarks.
The situation that the right hon. Gentleman has described seems, on the face of it, to be outrageous, and I can well understand the feeling of injustice that his constituents feel. Were our roles reversed, I might well have made a similar speech.
Today, I received a letter from Mr. Farrow of Bakewell Management, saying that the proposed charges will be lower than those that have been reported, although he does not go any further than that. He also points out that other organisations such as Surrey county council and the National Trust charge for access across common land. I should add to that that the Government have advised local councils that they have a duty to their tax payers to charge reasonable charges for access across common land. The emphasis, of course, is on the word "reasonable".
Mr. Farrow also said that Bakewell Management proposes eventually to form a trust and to endow it with a lump sum, and that the trust will be controlled by local people. I am sure that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire notes that with interest.

Sir George Young: It is a gift of dubious benefit. Bakewell proposes stripping out the common's asset value and—so that Bakewell is not encumbered with any obligations of maintaining the common—parking it in a trust. One has to consider the offer with some caution.

Mr. Mullin: I share the right hon. Gentleman's view on that point. I should also say that, although Bakewell may well have the letter of the law on its side, I wonder whether it is able to defend its position morally, as well as legally.
The matter stems from an application for first registration of Newtown common that has been made by a company called Bakewell Management Ltd. It is essentially a matter of private ownership of land, and the applicant is therefore entitled to keep certain aspects of its application private. It would be inappropriate for me to discuss the details of the particular case.
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, all applications for registration of land are dealt with by the Land Registry, the main statutory function of which is to keep a register of title to freehold and leasehold land throughout England and Wales. The head of the Land Registry is the chief land registrar, who is appointed by the Lord Chancellor under the Land Registration Act 1925—which gives the chief land registrar responsibility for conducting the whole business of registration. As the right hon. Gentleman will understand, it is not a matter in which a Minister could intervene.
There are, however, some general issues that apply to every application for first registration. The procedures to be followed are set out in the Land Registration Act 1925 and the land registration rules 1925. Whenever an applicant shows that he is the owner of a property, the chief land registrar is bound to register that property showing the applicant as the owner—he does not have a discretion.
The most recent application for first registration in this case was lodged in July 1997. In March and April 1999, advertisements were placed in the Newbury Weekly News and the Basingstoke Gazette giving brief details of the application and allowing 14 days for any objections to be lodged. The advertisements provoked a number of objections, the majority about rights of way over the common. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the current position on the application is that it is still with the Land Registry for determination.
A specific criticism has been made about the time limits imposed by the Land Registry for lodging objections or evidence in support. Generally, a reasonable but fairly short time will be allowed initially for people to lodge objections. The Land Registry recognises that most objectors will not have all their evidence immediately to hand and may well also wish to seek legal advice. If so, the Land Registry will generally be sympathetic if it is asked for more time, and legitimate objections will be accepted for consideration at any stage of the application.
Many of the residents seem to be frustrated that they are not allowed to object solely on the grounds that they genuinely believe that the applicant does not own the common. They can make a formal challenge to the application only if they can show that they have a competing claim. That does not mean that the Land Registry will ignore any relevant information that may have been provided to it by a third party. The Land Registry may well choose to take up such information with the applicant, but it will be a matter solely between the Land Registry and the applicant.
I hope that that satisfactorily deals with the registration issues.
As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has discovered in his investigations, the title "common land" is something of a misnomer. The term "common" refers to rights held in common by certain people to use the products of the soil of the common—for example, for grazing or cutting turf. Common land is, therefore, not land that is available to everyone, but generally owned by someone, and that person enjoys rights of ownership, although those rights may not be precisely the same as those enjoyed over land that is not common. The majority of common land is in private ownership.
As the right hon. Gentleman has discovered, it has been an offence—under either the Law of Property Act 1925 and/or subsequent Road Traffic Acts—to drive over common land without the owner's permission. He also mentioned a local byelaw that seemed to suggest that a ban should not apply on Newtown common. I sympathise with his view that that is an apparent contradiction in a confusing sphere of law. However, I am sure that he will appreciate that, in all spheres of law, it would be far more confusing if primary legislation could be overridden by a local byelaw.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that something should be done to rectify what he suggests is antiquated law—particularly by a Government whom he knows to be


committed to modernisation. I agree that, in some ways, common land law is ripe for review, and I shall return to that in a moment. However, the issue in this case is not primarily about common land law at all, but more about landowners' rights generally. Specifically, the issue is whether it is appropriate and lawful for landowners to have the ability to make an unlimited charge for activities that take place on land of which they are recognised as the legal owner. In that respect, common land is essentially no different from other land.
According to the law, landowners have the ability to charge for the right of vehicular access over their land, and that ability has been tested in the courts in cases very similar to the current one. Although I fully appreciate why the residents of Newtown common, and other people, consider it unacceptable that someone should be able to acquire land and then make significant changes to their use of it unless a large fee is paid, one of the purposes of the legislation was, and continues to be, to protect land from the intrusive use of vehicles.
In certain, limited circumstances, prescriptive rights may be acquired through long use. For example, generally, it is possible to obtain a right of way by 20 years' use, so long as the use is neither by force, nor secretly, nor with permission. However, the courts have ruled that it is not possible to obtain a right of way by long use when the use is a criminal offence. From the information available, it seems unlikely that the residents of Newtown common have any such prescriptive rights because, as I have already mentioned, the provisions of the 1925 Act and subsequent Road Traffic Acts have made it an offence to drive across common land. Undoubtedly, however, the residents have sought specific legal advice on their rights.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the possibility of legislative changes. He has mentioned the proposed right to roam legislation. That is a nice try, but I am afraid that it does not apply in these circumstances, as our proposals for access to open countryside, including registered common land, are about access on foot only. However, we shall soon be considering whether there should be any changes in the legislation that affects common land. If so, there will be public consultation on what changes would be desirable. I cannot promise that the Government will feel it necessary to act on vehicular access over common land, because, as I have said, there are wider issues to consider. Extinguishing landowners' rights without compensation would no doubt have implications under the Human Rights Act 1998. However, there may well be a case for placing some reasonable limit on the charge that the owner is entitled to make. I must again emphasise that I can make no commitment to legislation. I should also point out that, to be of any assistance to the residents of Newtown common, such legislation might have to include a retrospective element. The right hon. Gentleman has served in government for much longer than I have, so he will know that all Governments are reluctant to make legislation applicable retrospectively.
I am sorry that I cannot offer the right hon. Gentleman and his constituents the reassurance that they seek. I understand their anxiety and the uncertainty that the

unresolved situation creates for the residents, particularly for those who lack the resources to meet the possible access charges. The situation causes me some disquiet, and I have looked carefully to see what comfort I can offer.
I shall watch with interest the level of charges that Bakewell imposes and compare them with the reasonable charges for similar access made by county councils and the National Trust. I hope that whatever charges are imposed can be defended morally as well as legally.

Sir George Young: I know that the Minister is being as helpful as he can. Having made inquiries on what county councils charge, what does he regard as a reasonable charge? Would legislation to deal with the issue necessarily be retrospective? If the residents of Newtown common decide not to pay the 6 per cent.—or whatever the fee is—but to sit tight, and if legislation is introduced in due course that gives people rights on common land, there will be no need for the retrospective element that the Minister deplores.

Mr. Mullin: I cannot say off the top of my head what I regard as a reasonable charge. There are other examples. We have referred to a couple of them. The right hon. Gentleman can look at them and see for himself what is considered elsewhere to be a reasonable charge. I shall consider his points about getting round the retrospection, but I cannot give any commitment today.
As matters stand, I regret that I cannot see a way in which the Government could assist the right hon. Gentleman's constituents, but I am willing to meet him to discuss the matter further if he thinks that that would be useful.

Sir George Young: The Minister said that the behaviour of Bakewell, although legal, was difficult to defend morally. If a private Member's Bill got round the problem, would he be minded to support it?

Mr. Mullin: The right hon. Gentleman has occupied various posts in the Department that I now have the honour to represent. Because he is so much more experienced than I am, he will realise that he is pushing his luck by asking me to say on the spot that I shall support such legislation. The Government are clear on that. We cannot give a commitment on legislation. However, I assure him that we shall look carefully at any sensible proposals that anyone, particularly the right hon. Gentleman, comes up with.

It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

NEW WRIT

For the borough constituency of Kensington and Chelsea, in the room of the right hon. Alan Kenneth McKenzie Clark, deceased.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Challenge Fund

Mr. Tony Worthington: What assessment she has made of the likely impact of the new challenge fund on the activities of development organisations concerned with supporting her reproductive health policy. [95580]

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: For what reason funding for family planning and reproductive health in the civil society challenge fund has been reduced to 50 per cent. matched funding. [95586]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Our new civil society challenge fund is designed to engage a wide range of organisations in the UK in the development of a strong civil society, speaking up for the poor in developing countries. This replaces the old joint funding scheme which predominately financed service delivery by development non-governmental organisations. Our health programme is a more effective instrument for building countrywide access to reproductive health care and NGOs are frequently involved in this work. To help reproductive health care organisations adjust to the new arrangements, I have decided to phase in this change by offering 85 per cent. funding for year 1 of the new fund and 70 per cent. for year 2, reaching 50 per cent. in year 3.

Mr. Worthington: I welcome the decision by my right hon. Friend to phase in the changes. She will be well aware that organisations such as Marie Stopes International and Population Concern received 100 per cent. funding because of the sheer difficulty of raising funds for matters such as the sexual education of the young. Will my right hon. Friend keep an eye on this matter—I know of her commitment to it—so that we ensure that we meet our Cairo targets and that the work increases in the coming years?

Clare Short: The Department tried to find out why those NGOs were given 100 per cent. funding, unlike everyone else. To be honest, we could not get to the root of it, although what my hon. Friend has mentioned is alleged to be the reason. I am pleased to phase in the change, but my hon. Friend may like to know that we have doubled our commitment to £80 million, and that lots of NGOs are involved. The old joint funding scheme was worth £3 million. This is not the only route to giving people access to control over their fertility, and NGOs are involved in the much larger-scale work that we do.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the NGOs involved in reproductive and sexual health are regarded as among the best in the world? There is a fear among them that, if the matched funding is reduced from 100 to 85 per cent. in year 1, and then to

75 and 50 per cent., our Cairo targets may not be met. Will the Secretary of State keep the matter under review and, if that proves to be the case, alter the targets?

Clare Short: I shall gently repeat the figures that I have just put to the House. As a Government, we are committed to meeting the Cairo targets so that every person and family in the world can control their fertility and raise healthy children. NGOs cannot provide that service all over the world, but they can help us to help Governments to provide a universal service for their people. Those are our objectives. We have increased spending through our mainstream health programmes to £80 million a year, whereas the old funding scheme provided £3 million a year. We want NGOs to be involved, but we want universal services—not just a patchy provision.

Ms Chris McCafferty: I commend my right hon. Friend for her recognition that access to sexual and reproductive health services plays such an important part in the promotion of sustainable development and the elimination of poverty. Does she agree that, if all donor countries met their United Nations targets, 150 million people who want access to family planning would have it? The United Kingdom Government are paying more than their dues in this respect, and I commend her for that.
I, too, thank my right hon. Friend for recognising the difficulty that UK NGOs working on sexual and reproductive health have in raising funds. Will she do what she can to encourage British companies and foundations to support and make a fuller contribution to those NGOs, which do such a good job in raising awareness of the issues and providing services to people both here and in developing countries?

Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are committed to a human rights-based approach to development. All human beings, without exception, should have the chance to control their fertility, to have healthy children, to have those children educated and to see their families become better off. This work is part of giving people that freedom and improvement in their quality of life. I promise that we will continue to work with NGOs that are committed to those objectives.

Mr. John Bercow: Further to what the Secretary of State has just told the House, can she confirm that her Department funds no birth control policies abroad that would be unacceptable in the United Kingdom?

Clare Short: I can absolutely confirm that. The Cairo principles represented a great breakthrough after all the argument in the international system about population control by compulsion and the bad example that was set in the past in India and China. The great achievement of Cairo was to establish that there should be freedom of choice with no compulsion or pressure on people. We work absolutely according to those principles. There is much misreporting of our around £17 million a year support to the United Nations Population Fund, which is working in China to get away from compulsion and towards freedom of choice. We strongly support that.

Debt Relief

Mr. Bob Blizzard: What progress has been made in securing international agreement on debt relief for poorer countries. [95581]

Mr. Ivan Lewis: If she will make a statement on debt relief following the World bank-International Monetary Fund annual meetings in Washington. [95583]

Mr. Alan W. Williams: If she will make a statement on progress made by the World bank and the International Monetary Fund on relieving third world debt. [95585]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Agreement on a substantial revision to the heavily indebted poor countries initiative was reached at the annual meetings of the World bank and the IMF at the end of September. The new framework will deliver deeper debt relief and provide it more quickly and to more countries. The debt relief will be strongly focused on supporting poverty reduction strategies. A comprehensive financial package is still being worked out.
I made an additional pledge in Washington of $50 million towards the costs, helping to leverage further pledges from other countries and bringing the UK's total commitment to $221 million, or approximately £135 million. We are pressing the European Commission to firm up its proposals to a contribution of at least 1 billion euro. If that is agreed, the UK contribution to the trust fund will rise to $400 million.

Mr. Blizzard: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said and congratulate her on her work in achieving that historic agreement, which shows that the Government are leading the world. Does she agree that, alongside the debt reduction initiative, in the new World Trade Organisation round starting in Seattle this month, it will be important for the agenda to include international development targets so that poorer countries benefit from world trade agreements? Will she ensure that the Government's negotiating position includes that commitment?

Clare Short: At the World bank annual meeting, we made a commitment to supporting developing countries in advancing their trading rights and therefore their economic position in the next trade round. The Government have made a strong commitment to work for a trade round that brings real benefits to developing countries. It is both morally right and will give us a more stable global economy if the poorest countries can speed up their economic growth and the reduction of poverty.

Mr. Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the agreement that she and others have brokered is something of which Labour Members can be incredibly proud? It differentiates us from the Conservative party, which was unable to broker such agreements in government. It demonstrates how, if Britain is once again respected in the world, it can make a real difference in working for

both humanitarian and economic objectives, whether in the European Community or on the wider international stage.

Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. To be fair to the Conservatives, some of their representatives called for debt relief and gave a lead on some of the arguments, but they never put any money on the table and, therefore, had much less leverage with other countries than we have had since we came into government. We have worked since for faster debt relief and made available a bigger financial contribution. I am most proud that we have got debt relief linked to systematic poverty reduction strategies and got the IMF and the World bank to work in a way that is unprecedented and will have consequences beyond debt relief.

Mr. Williams: I congratulate my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Chancellor and the Jubilee 2000 campaign on their excellent work over the past few years and especially this summer. Will the money come from the Department for International Development budget or from the Treasury, and what are the annual recurrent costs? I am delighted that the agreements have been reached, but how will we pay for them?

Clare Short: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised that point, because the funding package that we need to implement Cologne is not firmly in place. We must firm up the EU pledge, and the pledge made by the United States of America has not yet been supported by Congress. The US Administration are working hard to get that support, but, if they fail, the HIPC trust fund will be in difficulty. The funding comes partly from the IMF, partly from the World bank and partly from export credit departments, but we need a trust fund to make up the difference that cannot come from those pockets. Our contributions to that trust fund come mostly from my Department's budget, although the Treasury and my Department will share the cost of the additional commitments made in Washington. Debt relief must help the poor, because otherwise it would mean that aid money was taken away from equally poor countries without large debts—and that would not be fair.

Mr. Gary Streeter: The Secretary of State will know that the Opposition support much of the progress made in the past 12 months on debt relief, building on the success of the Conservative years. Given that US Treasury officials have now confirmed that President Clinton's initiative of 100 per cent. bilateral debt write-off for the world's poorest countries will include debts that arose after the cut-off date in each case, will the Secretary of State clarify whether the Government's write-off will also include post-cut-off-date debt—yes or no?

Clare Short: Let me explain to the hon. Gentleman that President Clinton—who is the master of spin—has not yet been able to persuade Congress fully to fund the USA's commitment. He said that his Government will consider going beyond the 90 per cent. debt write-off—at least for all export credit debt, which is part of the new package—to 100 per cent., case by case, if the countries involved are focused on poverty reduction. We hope that


he will get the funding from Congress to deliver that pledge. Going beyond 90 per cent. is not a matter for my Department, and I wish to make it clear that it would be wrong to use our aid budget to pay off export credit debt. That is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Chancellor has made it clear that, in individual cases, we will consider going as far as 100 per cent. The hon. Gentleman should put his questions to my right hon. Friend, because I am keen to protect my budget from that argument.

Mr. Streeter: I am sorry, but that simply will not do. The Secretary of State is keen to take the credit for some of the breakthroughs, but she is not prepared to take the responsibility. If the US Government matches the 100 per cent. write-off that President Clinton has spoken about, will the Government match it—yes or no? The Secretary of State has already answered that question because she has written to every Labour Member, saying that the Government will match President Clinton's offer. She even included a model press release for Members to send to her constituents setting out the good news even further. Labour's internal document claims that Labour leads on debt relief and that the Government have agreed to a write-off of 100 per cent. of UK loans. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government will match President Clinton's offer? If they will not, is not that another case of Labour saying one thing and doing another?

Clare Short: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman shows that his grasp of the issues is about the same as that of Miss Ann Pettifor. Given her political background, one might say that the two make strange bed fellows.
The question is interesting, but it is not the most important. The most important achievement made at Cologne, and then in Washington, is that debt relief is now faster and deeper, and is focused on a leveraging policy that systematically reduces poverty. The issue raised by the hon. Gentleman is something of a side show, given that the funding and agreement to implement what was agreed at Cologne have not yet been secured. President Clinton has not yet got the funding to meet his contribution to the HIPC trust fund. We hope that he will get that additional money.
As I said earlier, the hon. Gentleman should take the matter up with my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. However, I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman does not understand that the most important consideration for the poor is to implement the package that we have got.

Sir Sydney Chapman: I welcome the initiatives that the Government have taken, which follow on from those taken by the previous Conservative Government. However, does the Secretary of State agree that one of the problems is that the programme has moved too slowly? So far, only four of the 36 qualifying countries have received debt reductions. That is the result of what many people consider to be unrealistically stringent economic conditions imposed by the

International Monetary Fund and the World bank. Is the right hon. Lady satisfied that those rigid conditions are being relaxed in the latest initiatives?

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The previous initiative required a six-year track record, but that is an awful long time for qualifying countries. The initiative has gone much too slowly because it is not generous enough. It was meant to give a sustainable exit from the burden of debt but, when coffee prices worldwide fell, Uganda and Bolivia—which had qualified for debt reduction—found that they had not escaped that burden. Our aim is to achieve conditions that will be more generous and flexible, so that countries can qualify for relief earlier. By that means, we will be able to leverage good economic policy to promote the growth that reduces poverty.
That is what has been agreed in the new package, and what is so good about it. We must now assemble the funding to get it implemented very rapidly.

East Timor

Mr. Derek Twigg: What steps her Department is taking in East Timor to provide humanitarian assistance and to assist with reconstruction. [95582]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): I am pleased to tell the House that we have doubled our contribution to the response to the crisis in East Timor to £6.5 million. That is made up of £5.5 million for immediate assistance, and £1 million to support the transition to independence.
So far, our funding has been used to re-establish the UN presence by providing communication and transport systems. It has also been used to help fund the safe return of refugees and to provide funding for the World Food Programme to help it supply food and shelter. We are also working to ensure power and safe water supplies are restored.
We have also provided funding to the Gurkhas to enable them to run mobile clinics, escort humanitarian convoys, distribute food and help with the clean-up operations.

Mr. Twigg: I thank my hon. Friend for securing the much-needed extra resources, as many of my constituents have written to me about this matter, which is also of grave concern to many Church groups. Will my hon. Friend do all in his power to ensure that the assistance gets to the right people quickly?

Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend is right. One of the biggest problems is access to the refugees. There are about 230,000 refugees in West Timor, and only about 22,000 have been allowed to return to East Timor. I urge the Government of Indonesia to allow us safe access to the refugees and to do everything that they can to ensure the safe passage of refugees back to their homes.

Mr. James Gray: Will the Minister take urgent steps to promote the interests of British companies in achieving the physical reconstruction of East Timor that he has described? If he answers that question in the affirmative, how will he explain the different answer to the same question given by the Secretary of State in China last December? At that time, she specifically excluded promoting British companies in China.

Mr. Foulkes: Our main aim is to ensure that the reconstruction is carried out as quickly and effectively as possible. If that can be done by British companies, then so much the better.

Ann Clwyd: I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Minister mention the refugees in West Timor. I understand that 219,000 of them are still there; after three weeks' of trying, the UNHCR has managed to repatriate 16,000 people. That is clearly inadequate: does my hon. Friend agree that more pressure to release those refugees back to their homeland must be exerted on the Indonesian Government?
Will my hon. Friend also ensure that the investigation of war crimes in East Timor continues apace? As yet, forensic scientists have not even entered the country to begin what should be the urgent and immediate investigation of the thousands of killings during the Indonesian occupation.

Mr. Foulkes: I agree with my hon. Friend on both counts. We are doing all that we can to ensure that refugees return. We estimate that about 22,000 have returned, but that is only about 10 per cent. of the total. We are urging the Government of Indonesia to do everything that they can to get refugees home as quickly as possible. On the question of human rights violations, Britain fully supports international efforts to ensure that those guilty of abuses are brought to justice. We were one of the co-sponsors of the European Union resolution adopted on 27 September at the special session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which called for an international commission of inquiry to establish the facts.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does the Minister agree that the expense being placed on the Department for International Development by the reconstruction of East Timor would have been saved if the Government had listened to the clamour of that country's supporters and stopped the sale of arms to Indonesia much earlier? Will he assure the House that his Department will in future have more influence on where the United Kingdom sells its arms?

Mr. Foulkes: That matter is under active discussion. As far as the money is concerned, half the sum involved is being found by reallocating resources set aside for Indonesia to East Timor, a policy with which I am sure the hon. Lady would agree. The other half will come from the reserve.

Rev. Martin Smyth: We welcome the positive contribution of the Department for International Development to Indonesia, but can the Minister assure us that he will not take his eye off the ball, given that human atrocities occur in other parts of Indonesia, such as Ambon? Will he keep up the pressure on the Indonesian authorities?

Mr. Foulkes: I can certainly give that assurance. That is exactly the kind of thing that our funding to Indonesia is geared towards.

Banana Producers (Commonwealth)

Mr. Tony Baldry: What assistance Her Majesty's Government are giving to Commonwealth banana-producing countries to assist diversification. [95584]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): Through the EU, we are providing substantial funds to promote diversification and alternative income opportunities in Caribbean banana-producing countries. We are also supplying technical help to those programmes and support through our own programmes to help reduce vulnerability by developing educational skills and encouraging diversification. I might add that, in 1998, under the Commonwealth debt initiative, Jamaica, St Lucia, Dominica and Grenada all had bilateral debt cancelled.

Mr. Baldry: I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that most Members feel that the Commonwealth should have first charge on the UK aid budget, particularly the bilateral aid budget. Fairly or not, a lot of Commonwealth Caribbean countries say that they feel neglected. Only the other day, Prime Minister Jospin of France was in Guadaloupe to promote the interests of Francophone banana producers. Is it not time that the Government gave greater urgency to assistance for the Commonwealth Caribbean countries, not only through the EU aid budget, but through our bilateral aid budget?

Mr. Foulkes: I assure the hon. Gentleman—and the chairman of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram)—that there is no diminution in our concern for the Caribbean banana producers and the other Commonwealth countries. The position is quite the reverse. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has visited the Caribbean, and we have set up a Caribbean forum to discuss the problems of the region. I have visited the Caribbean on a number of occasions—[Interruption.] I shall be very happy to go again, and shall, indeed, do so when I go to Jamaica next month.

Trade Capacity Building

Mr. Phil Hope: What measures her Department is taking (a) bilaterally and (b) through multilateral organisations to support trade capacity building in the poorest countries. [95587]

Mrs. Sylvia Heal: If she will make a statement on the actions her Department is taking to support trade capacity building in developing countries. [95588]

Mr. Tony Colman: If she will make a statement on the World Trade Organisation Seattle development round negotiations. [95589]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): We are working both bilaterally and with a wide range of international organisations to help build the capacity of developing countries to participate effectively in the international trading system. A full list of the work that we are supporting has been placed in the Library of the House.
It is not widely appreciated that three quarters of the members of the World Trade Organisation are developing countries. That means that they are in a position to make great gains and improve their development prospects in the next trade round. It also means that agreement in the next round is dependent on their support. We have, over the past two years, provided £10 million to support training on the negotiating capacity of developing countries and their ability to make use of trade opportunities. We are also working to encourage the EU, the World bank and other agencies to provide further support.

Mr. Hope: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. I recently visited Vietnam and saw at first hand—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. I cannot hear what hon. Members are saying; it is very disruptive.

Mr. Hope: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I recently visited Vietnam and saw at first hand the excellent poverty reduction work that is funded by DFID. Vietnam has applied to join the World Trade Organisation, but is not yet a member. Many developing countries that are members of the WTO are not getting a fair deal from that organisation. Will the Secretary of State take action to ensure that countries such as Vietnam and other WTO member states get a fair deal and are better able to participate in the system for resolving world trade disputes?

Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am absolutely convinced that a membership-based, rules-based organisation—which is what the WTO now is—gives developing countries the chance to secure better rights in the international trading system. However, we are concerned that some countries are reluctant to use the rules to exercise their rights because they fear the costs involved. Therefore, we have joined other countries in establishing a legal advisory centre, which will be launched in Seattle. It will make it easier for developing countries to exercise their rights under the rules-based system.

Mrs. Heal: I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the hon. Lady.

Mrs. Heal: In thanking my right hon. Friend for her answer, I draw her attention to the disappointment felt by

many developing countries at the outcome of the Uruguay round. What realistic expectations can they have for the new round?

Clare Short: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is alleged that developing countries did not make gains from the Uruguay round. However, the World bank and others conducted a thorough study which found that developing countries' gains were at least as good as—and, in proportion to income, better than—those of the industrialised countries. That is not to say that the developing countries cannot make greater gains, but it is not true that they did not benefit from the last round. It is important that everyone understands that developing countries can gain more from a comprehensive round, which is the position that we should support.

Mr. Colman: Given the failure of negotiations on the multilateral agreement on investment at the OECD, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be sensible to restart investment negotiations at the World Trade Organisation, with proper safeguards for core labour standards, environmental protection and good governance? If she agrees, will she take that agenda to UNCTAD 10 in Thailand in February in order to ensure consensus among the United Nations community?

Clare Short: I agree that the poorest developing countries need massive inward investment that will provide infrastructure and access to modern technology and knowledge. The World Trade Organisation is the right place to negotiate an international investment agreement that will bring benefits to developing countries. The EU believes that such an agreement should be included in the next round, and we support both securing agreement in Seattle and assisting developing countries in fighting their corner.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Is it not the case that the illegal distortions to world trade that are inherent in the protectionist regime of the European Union—particularly with regard to bananas, to which the Minister referred earlier—are causing severe impoverishment in third world countries? Is the World Trade Organisation not entitled to ask the European Union to put its own house in order? For example, there has been severe disruption on the streets of Ecuador, a third world banana producer, which is so severely in debt that it has been forced to renege on its obligations.

Clare Short: I assure the hon. Gentleman that talks on bananas are continuing and we are hopeful that we will secure an agreement that will be WTO compatible and will guard the interests of the banana-producing Caribbean countries, in particular. I hope that we are on the brink of settling that long-running, unhelpful dispute.
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the European Union's highly protective, highly subsidised agriculture is not good for consumers in Europe and is a barrier to trading opportunities for developing countries that have their natural advantage in agriculture production. We strongly support the consideration of agriculture as a major issue in the next trade round, and we hope to dismantle some of that protectionism.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mr. Adrian Sanders: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 3 November.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Mr. Sanders: The Prime Minister will be aware that his Government, unlike the previous Government, have recognised some of the problems facing seaside resort economies. Money has been available through the single regeneration budget, although it is not enough, and councils have to bid for it and not all of them get it. Recent statements by the Government suggest that objective 2 is being used to help seaside resort economies, but closer analysis reveals that the wards that have designated objective 2 status do so because of deprivation, not because they are seaside resorts. What extra help will the Government give to seaside resort economies around the country that are facing desperate problems?

The Prime Minister: The Government recognise the special needs of seaside resorts by making allowances for seasonal changes in employment and heavier social services costs in our support to such areas through the local authorities financial settlement. In addition, since July, the hon. Gentleman's constituency has been awarded almost £3 million under the single regeneration budget. Torbay has now been designated a new enterprise grant area, with grants available for small and medium companies, many of which are involved in tourism. Torbay has also been included in our proposals for objective 2 structural funds.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The day after the Prime Minister was at the CBI conference and share option tax breaks were being thrown around like confetti, he probably heard on the radio and saw on television that the last pit in the north-east had closed, so two very significant industrial matters arose in one week. As Richard Budge is investing money in coal mines in Australia, Venezuela and other countries, can he really be trusted to save the last 13 deep mines, which still produce the cheapest coal in Europe? There is only one solution, which is not to fill the pockets of Mr. Richard Budge and his gang, but to think the unthinkable and take those 13 coal mines back into public ownership.

The Prime Minister: I do not think that I can do that, but I can say that, as a result of the changes that we made on coming into office, we have given time for the whole energy policy to be sorted out and, in particular, for the discrimination against coal to be ended. That gives tremendous help to the coal mines and coal-mining areas. If we had continued the policy of the previous Government, every single pit in Britain would have been

closed by now, but this Government will not do that; this Government will carry on sorting out an energy policy that is in the interests of all the country.

Mr. William Hague: When it is so important to encourage small information technology companies to thrive in this country, what on earth are the Government doing voting tonight for yet another of the Prime Minister's stealth taxes which will hit precisely those companies? Will not another £500 million of taxes drive such companies to set up business abroad rather than here in Britain?

The Prime Minister: No, because as a result of the changes that we are making to the taxes on small businesses, including lowering corporation tax and the small business tax, we are giving the best boost to small businesses that this country has seen for many years, which is why so many of them are thriving.

Mr. Hague: We are talking about the knowledge economy, and judging by the Prime Minister's answer, he is not part of it. The Government will vote tonight for another £500 million stealth tax that affects thousands of small businesses, particularly information technology businesses, and other contractors. That measure is called IR 35, but it is really a stealth tax.
As the chairman of the Professional Contractors Group says,
the proposals show astonishing naivety.
Their effect
will be to kill the enterprise culture. American multinationals will be laughing all the way to the bank as the British Government destroys their home grown competition.
It is not too late to avert this, so will the Prime Minister look at it again, and vote with us tonight to strike it out of the legislation?

The Prime Minister: I certainly will not do that. We are quite right to introduce this measure. Companies will be treated on a fair basis—the same basis on which everyone pays taxes in this country. If we did as the right hon. Gentleman says, we would lose hundreds of millions of pounds of revenue. That is in addition to the £7 billion of revenue that we would lose if we accepted all the Opposition's amendments. Perhaps, when he gets up and attacks me again, he will explain how he will fund those commitments.

Mr. Hague: The Government have not yet brought in the measure, so they would not lose any revenue at all; and when the Government are driving thousands of IT businesses out of this country, there is no point in posing with a computer every other week trying to be computer-friendly—presumably looking for the on switch.
The British Chambers of Commerce has calculated from the Government's own figures that business taxes will rise by £30 billion in this Parliament as a result of the Chancellor's Budget, so will the Prime Minister acknowledge that what he told the House in February when he said
business tax has come down"—[Official Report, 10 February 1999; Vol. 325, c. 316.]


is, yet again, the opposite of the truth? Will he acknowledge now that business taxes are going up?

The Prime Minister: They are not. We are cutting corporation tax, as we have said many times. In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's central point, the measure will ensure that everyone in the country pays tax on the same basis, so people do not avoid tax, which others then have to pay.
The measure will not drive companies out of Britain. Countries such as ours are thriving because, for the first time in years, we have managed to bring public spending and inflation under proper control, which is why the economy—far from being in recession, as the right hon. Gentleman said a few months ago—is thriving.
The right hon. Gentleman says that we have not yet lost money. If we did not take these measures, and if we went down his path and included that £7 billion of tax cuts, we would have to find that money from somewhere in the years ahead. As he says that he wants to run an effective economic policy, it is about time that he answered the questions that we had to answer when we were in opposition. Where does the money come from for that £7 billion of tax cuts?

Mr. Hague: The more the right hon. Gentleman refuses to admit the truth, the less people believe what he says. He talked about reducing corporation tax, but, yesterday, at the CBI conference, he actually said that he had heard complaints about corporation tax. People do not come and complain that he has cut the rate; they come and complain because they have to pay. On Monday, the president of the CBI said that when the Government talk about changes in business tax, any cuts are
more than offset by the windfall tax, the loss of the Dividend Tax Credit and now the Climate Change Levy. The sums they give back are trivial by comparison.
Will the Prime Minister now answer the question and agree that, although he said that business taxes were coming down, the opposite is the case, and they have actually gone up?

The Prime Minister: I will not, for the reason that I gave on corporation tax. If I may bring the right hon. Gentleman back to the central point, what business needs more than anything is economic stability. That stability depends on our running a budget and ensuring that the finances are under proper control, so that we can get inflation under control and provide the stability that business needs. That is precisely why we have some of the best economic circumstances that the country has seen for years.
If we went down the alternative path of the Opposition's amendments to the Finance Bill, it would mean £7 billion of lost revenue. However, the Opposition have also tabled amendments to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill totalling an extra £4 billion social security spending. That makes £11 billion—[Interruption.] I am afraid that Conservative Members should understand what their own Front Benchers are doing before they shout at me. The amendments would mean that this country would lose £11 billion a year.
All Governments have to take difficult decisions. We have taken them and sorted out public finances. The right hon. Gentleman cannot tell us where the £7 billion will

come from, but will he at least tell us what he will do about the £4 billion-worth of extra social security spending?

Mr. Hague: The question is whether business taxes have gone up. The Prime Minister is as stealthy with the truth as he is with his taxes. He claims that taxes are going down when they are going up; he says that he is worried about red tape when he is introducing it by the yard; he talks about the importance of information technology, but will tonight vote to drive many such companies abroad; he speaks about competition but is diminishing Britain's competitive advantage. Along with his promise to increase no taxes at all, is not all that part of the great Labour lie?

The Prime Minister: The Government are investing more in new technology than any previous Government. Indeed, we are putting several hundred million pounds into technology centres around the country to give people access to the new skills. As a result of measures announced by the Chancellor, we have probably provided a better system of help to start up technology companies than this country has ever seen—and that is acknowledged by many people.
In the end, the choice is between the economic priorities and economic competence of both parties. We inherited a £28 billion borrowing requirement and a national debt which had doubled, but we have sorted out the public finances and, for the first time in many, many years, given the country the prospect of steady growth. The right hon. Gentleman has totally failed to say how he manages, at one and the same time, to tell people that he will cut their taxes by billions of billions of pounds, but increase social security spending by billions of pounds, while still wanting more money to be spent on defence, law and order, schools and hospitals.
In opposition, we had to answer those questions, and at some point the right hon. Gentleman will have to answer them, too. Then, the country will see that it has a clear choice between a Labour Government who are running a competent economy and a Conservative party that not merely cannot add up its sums, but has not the faintest clue of how to deal with the tough decisions affecting the British economy.

Ms Bridget Prentice: If it is true, as is often said, that my right hon. Friend pays attention to the views of the readership of the Daily Mail, will he allay the concerns of this reader and of my very many right hon. and hon. Friends that the headline on its front page today about a retreat on the ban on hunting is simply wrong?

The Prime Minister: I assure my hon. Friend that the Home Secretary will make an announcement in the next few days, although I can tell her that she should not believe all that she reads in the newspapers.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: We know that the Government have offered some concessions on the detail, but not the principle, of means testing incapacity benefits. Although that might be enough to buy off some rebels on his Back Benches, will the Prime Minister acknowledge that such a policy will still


end up penalising some of the most vulnerable people in our society? Where in the previous Labour manifesto was such a pledge made—on what page, in what paragraph?

The Prime Minister: We certainly did say that we would reform the welfare state. I believe that the reform that we are introducing is the right reform, and I shall explain why. Since 1979, the number of people claiming incapacity benefit has trebled. Our reforms will not affect any existing claimants, but if we do not reform the system for the future, we will carry on running up large bills, while many people who are severely disabled and who genuinely need the help are not getting it.
As a result of our reforms, we will bring the system of incapacity benefit under control, as we should do, but we will also extend help to some of the most severely disabled. Some of those, particularly the younger severely disabled, will be better off by up to £30 a week.

Mr. Kennedy: Given that the principle of means testing incapacity benefit is established, the alarm bells should be ringing. Will the Prime Minister give the House and the country a categorical guarantee that he will not extend that principle to the basic state pension?

The Prime Minister: We have already said that. It is absolutely clear. The right hon. Gentleman says that to extend any form of means testing to incapacity benefit is wrong. We have extended means testing to other forms of contributory benefit, and of course incapacity benefit is taxed. In the end, it comes down to the simple question of how we spend the money that we propose to spend on disability and welfare.
For example, during this Parliament we shall spend an extra £2 billion on disabled people. [Interruption.] I have already answered the question about the basic state pension. The new deal for disabled people will give personal support and quality training to almost 1 million disabled people. We shall implement the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in full. We are setting up a Disability Rights Commission. We have introduced the disability rights task force. We are helping carers of disabled people with new pension rights and the opportunity to take a break from their responsibilities.
Those reforms mean that more disabled children get help with mobility, and there is more help for severely disabled people, more help with rehabilitation for those people who want to work, and more help with retention so that those developing a disability can stay in their job. That is a good package for disabled people as a whole. [Interruption.] To Conservative Members who are shouting—[HON. MEMBERS: "Look behind you."] At this moment I am looking in front of me.

Madam Speaker: Order. This is extremely time consuming. [Interruption.] Order. I shall suspend the sitting. I have had enough of hon. Members interrupting.

The Prime Minister: It is right that the country should know that the Conservatives want to slash welfare bills, but they support every single one of the measures that would increase bills. In particular, in the past two days, we have discovered that they support a measure in the Immigration and Asylum Bill that would increase spending on benefits for asylum seekers by £500 million,

and which would reverse a change introduced by the very Minister who is now shadow Home Secretary. The country can tell the difference between serious opposition and serious opportunism.

Mr. Barry Gardiner: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to extend the sympathy and support of the House to the people of Orissa whose lives have been devastated by the cyclone? Will he ensure that Britain plays a prominent role in all the aid and development work that is necessary from us and our partners in the international community to restore those people's livelihoods?

The Prime Minister: I entirely concur with my hon. Friend. We extend our deepest sympathy to the victims of that disaster. I have just spoken to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, and she informs me that we are contributing to the international fund that has been set up to tackle the disaster. In due course, as fresh information reaches us, I am sure that we will make further help available.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: The millennium dome, which will undoubtedly be a success, entails the expenditure of £758 million. Of that, £399 million is from the lottery. How does the Prime Minister square that with the fact that St. Dunstan's, which cares for those who have been blinded in the service of their country, has applied three times for lottery grant and not received any? I wear my poppy with pride, as do many hon. Members. Many of those poppies have been made at St. Dunstan's.

The Prime Minister: I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that four fifths of the lottery stream goes to a host of other lottery causes. I cannot comment on the particular cause to which the hon. Gentleman draws attention.

Mr. Bob Russell: Make inquiries then.

The Prime Minister: I am happy to make inquiries, but it is not for me to distribute lottery money. That is done by the relevant organisation.

Ms Rosie Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Victim Support is campaigning for victims and their families to have the right to be consulted and to be given the same information about the possible release of offenders held under the Mental Health Act 1983, as is offered in cases involving the release of convicted criminals from prison? Will he bring together the Department of Health and the Home Office to see how to resolve the current situation and give some peace of mind to victims and their families who have already suffered enough?

The Prime Minister: I assure my hon. Friend that we will take into account the views that she has expressed. In the Green Paper on the review of the Mental Health Act, we proposed that families should be given rights to information about the detention and release of restricted patients who have committed serious violent or sexual offences. We have also increased the funding of Victim Support by 50 per cent. since taking office. I am well


aware of people's concerns about the fact that they need to know about releases from prison. I am sure that we can deal with this in the way that I have described.

Mr. Andrew George: If achieving social and economic inclusion is the biggest challenge a Government can set themselves, what decisive action will the Prime Minister take to guarantee the efficient and effective delivery of public-matched funds to the poorest regions of the United Kingdom, namely European Union objective 1 regions?

The Prime Minister: We are looking at how we can make the proper arrangements for the co-ordination of matched funding. Under the new procedures and the new deal that we secured, 75 per cent. of the money for objective l comes from the European Union. That is a big increase on the previous position. As a result of objective 1 status being given to Cornwall, which is the area represented by the hon. Gentleman and others, it will receive some £320 million during the next seven years.

Mr. Bill Rammell: Will the Prime Minister reassure the House that the Government will not promise welfare changes that we cannot fund? Does he agree that any political party that simultaneously calls for a reduction in welfare spending as a proportion of GDP, argues that that can be achieved by cuts in welfare benefits and then votes for substantial amendments involving billions of pounds of extra expenditure comes, to use the words of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), dangerously close to hypocrisy?

The Prime Minister: That is right. People should be aware of the Conservative party's commitments in respect of cutting social security funding. If the Conservative party is to make its sums add up, it will have to cut certain things. It is already committed to cutting the new deal for the unemployed. That is help which the Conservative party will take away from 250,000 young people. It is also committed to abolishing the working families tax credit. That means that 2 million low income families will have money taken from them. Above all, having told us that it was reckless to promise extra social security spending on specific groups, every pensioner household should know that the £100 going to them next week will be taken off them by a future Conservative Government.

Mr. Richard Spring: Is the Prime Minister aware that the House of Commons Library has decisively and definitively analysed his spending pledges, particularly on health and education, and shown that they are wholly misleading? Is he aware that there is no other country that takes it spending plans and double and treble counts them? Can we have some simple truth from the Prime Minister on this issue instead of the spin-doctoring and grotesque manipulation of the figures that we have from him and his Ministers?

The Prime Minister: That is complete nonsense. The £40 billion for schools and hospitals is extra money over and above the present allocation. Expenditure during our first two years in office, including that extra money, has been more generous than Conservative spending plans. The hon. Gentleman belongs to a party that wants to cut money for schools, hospitals, the police and transport.

[Interruption.] Oh yes, it does. The shadow Chancellor and the Leader of the Opposition have been to the CBI conference and elsewhere and have said that they would cut public spending and guarantee that everyone's tax would come down every year. They could not do that without cutting the money for schools, hospitals, law and order, transport and pensioners.
The Government are combining enterprise with fairness. We have sorted out the mess in public finances that the Conservatives left us. The only people who cannot criticise us on any public services are the Conservatives. At some point—at the next general election if not before—they will realise what a strategic blunder they have made.

Kali Mountford: Has my right hon. Friend examined the Ontario experience, where there has been a common-sense revolution? If so, is he aware that it has led to increased homelessness and poverty? Would not it be better to have a new definition of common sense—one that leads to modernisation and welfare reform with fairness and justice, rather than the division between poverty and wealth that the Tories' common-sense revolution would bring about?

The Prime Minister: The common-sense revolution and the election of the Conservative party is a contradiction in terms. When I went through the list of measures that it opposes, I forgot to mention that it is also opposed to the 20 per cent. increase in child benefit that came in this April. Not only would pensioners, working families and the young unemployed lose, but 7 million families would be worse off under the Tories.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: I do not participate in blood sports, apart from Prime Minister's Question Time and paragliding, but I am in the Middle Way group, which seeks to find an alternative to either an outright ban on fox hunting or maintaining the status quo. Will the Prime Minister meet a cross-party delegation from the Middle Way group to hear our proposals for an independent hunting authority so as to move the debate forward?

The Prime Minister: I am always interested in third ways, but I have nothing to add to what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice), except that I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman's group.

Ms Sandra Osborne: The news that Britain has destroyed its last operational anti-personnel mine three years ahead of schedule will be welcomed nationally and internationally? Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must keep up the pressure until every country has followed Britain's lead and taken action?

The Prime Minister: I confirm that the United Kingdom's anti-personnel land mine destruction programme has been completed, a full three years ahead of the time frame laid down in the Ottawa convention. The United Kingdom will never again use anti-personnel


land mines in military operations. We have led the way on this issue, and we hope that the rest of the world will follow.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: In 1997, when the Government came to power, people were putting more than 10 per cent. of their income into long-term savings. Two years later, the savings ratio has declined from more than 10 per cent. to less than 5 per cent. Why have the Government introduced policies that have been so deeply damaging?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept that, and the most recent figures show an increase in the percentage of savings, not a decrease. I go back to the point that I made to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). As a result of the measures that we have taken, we have saved this country from what would

certainly have happened if we had continued the policies of the previous Government when we came to office. Those policies would have landed us back in the cycle of recession that we were in twice under the Conservative Government. As a result of the help that we are giving, not least in the new welfare reform proposals for pensions, stakeholder pensions and pension reform, we will enable this country to keep the costs of pensions under control, and to bring pensions within the purview of many people currently denied them. Moreover, we will do so at the same time as running the most effective and confident economic policies that have been seen in this country for decades, and—if I may return to a theme that featured earlier in Prime Minister's questions—avoiding boom and bust.

Madam Speaker: Time is up. I call Mr. Gummer. [Interruption.] Order. I ask Members to leave quietly, particularly Opposition Members.

Multiple Retailer (Publication and Display of Ethical Sourcing Policies)

Mr. John Gummer: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require retailers with more than ten outlets to publish and display in each outlet a statement of their procurement policies in relation to child labour, slave labour and environmental protection.
Many British retailers currently take a seriously ethical view of the way in which they source their products. C and A, for example, operates the most up-to-date system to ensure that the products it sells come from countries and organisations that do not employ slave or child labour, and Marks and Spencer operates similar policies. Kingfisher's environmental policies provide for its various wood products to come only with the stamp of the Forestry Stewardship Council, thus ensuring that those products are from sustainable forests. A number of retailers employ the highest ethical standards. I believe that we should make it possible for them, as a matter of course, to make that public to every one of their customers, so that those customers can see that the products that they are buying have been chosen and secured from sources of which they can be proud.
We recently engaged in discussions about the purchase of pigmeat from welfare-friendly sources. Such issues are very proper concerns of British producers. Unfortunately, however, competitors often ignore such basic ethical considerations, and are therefore able to sell their products more cheaply.
The present situation will be complicated by the arrival on our shores of Wal-Mart, an American group which, over the years, has experienced considerable problems in explaining the sourcing of its products in both ethical and environmental terms. I want Wal-Mart to start in this country with a clean sheet: I want it to have to subscribe to the rules that I propose in the Bill. Those rules are very simple. I suggest that, in any chain with more than 10 outlets, the company's procurement policy in relation to ethical and environmental grounds should be displayed prominently. I also suggest that a detailed explanation of the way in which those general principles are implemented should be available to both customers and shareholders, and to head office.
That, surely, is not an unreasonable request. It will not give rise to extra red tape, because all decent companies could take such action tomorrow; what it will mean is that customers will know the price at which the low price that they pay has been bought. They will know that, if a company has undercut the general market, that is because the company is more efficient, not because it has done deals of which it should be ashamed.
This is especially important in view of the arrival of Wal-Mart. Throughout the United States are small towns whose high streets have been destroyed by the way in which that firm operates. As a Minister who sought to improve and to increase the viability of our high streets, I am concerned that we should not find that the incomer, Wal-Mart, does not meet the environmental standards that have increasingly been espoused by home-grown companies.
It is necessary to raise the matter for another reason. Of all the companies I know, Wal-Mart is the only one, before it had a single shop in Britain, to secure a special

meeting between the Prime Minister and its senior executive here. The fact that Hillary Clinton is a former director of the Arkansas-based business did not, I am sure, do it any harm. Whatever was said at the meeting, many must be concerned that the odd nod or wink suggested that planning permission that would not be available to other companies might be available to Wal-Mart.
Such a deal would fundamentally damage not only retail businesses with which Wal-Mart will compete, but the high streets that are so important to the rebuilding of the centres of our great cities and market towns alike. The House should be considerably concerned about the standards and values of great retailers. In taking on board ethical and environmental considerations, our retailers have set an example that is better than that of the average retailer in the world. I want to give them the opportunity to compete on a level playing field.
I do not want to exclude people who take different views. I want people to know what the price of "cut price" is. If they know that, and still buy products that are produced in the appalling conditions that have been revealed recently in islands in Asia, where people are corralled to work for a pittance and can only earn enough to get back to their home in that workplace, that will be up to consumers. Such conditions bring globalisation and the World Trade Organisation into disrepute.
It is of great importance that those of us who are committed to free trade should remind the House that it was here that Conservatives such as Wilberforce and Shaftesbury said that free trade should be within proper civilised parameters. Those include ensuring that slave labour and child labour are not the means of reducing prices, and that damaging the countryside shall not be the price of ensuring that we can undercut competitors.
All those issues should be raised now, before companies get into their stride. We have seen what their stride has meant to other people in other nations; that is why the Bill should become law. It is for that simple reason that I want Wal-Mart to begin afresh—without all the background and history that have so besmirched the company—at least learning here that free enterprise and trade bring responsibility. Companies have to behave properly not just in this country, but in all countries where the vulnerability of people is much greater than here.
It is for those people that we banned the slave trade. It is for those people that we should seek to ban the use of products of slave labour.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Gummer, Mrs. Gillian Shephard, Mr. Anthony Steen, Mr. Richard Spring, Mr. Peter Lilley, Sir David Madel, Mr. David Ruffley.

MULTIPLE RETAILER (PUBLICATION AND DISPLAY OF ETHICAL SOURCING POLICIES)

Mr. John Gummer accordingly presented a Bill to require retailers with more than ten outlets to publish and display in each outlet a statement of their procurement policies in relation to child labour, slave labour and environmental protection: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 5 November, and to be printed [Bill 160].

Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill (Supplemental Allocation of Time)

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): I beg to move,
That the Order of the House of 20th May 1999 be supplemented as follows—

Lords Amendments

1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at today's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight.

2.—(1) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order, namely:
Nos. 42 to 46, 1 to 41 and 47 to 191.
(2) Each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table.

TABLE


Lords amendments
Time for conclusion of proceedings


Nos. 42 to 46
7.00 p.m.


Nos. 1 to 34
10.00 p.m.


Nos. 35 to 41, 47 to 191
Midnight.

3.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2.
(2) The Speaker shall—

(a) put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and has not been decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, the Question on any further Amendment of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in the Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the Lords Amendment as amended,
(b) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment followed by the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended,
(c) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees with the Lords in a Lords Amendment, and
(d) put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.


(3) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.

Subsequent stages

4. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.

5. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

6. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion the Speaker shall—

(a) put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and has not been decided, and the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair,
(b) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message, and

(c) put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Reasons Committee

7. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.

8.—(1) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
(2) Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
(3) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) the Chairman shall—

(a) first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and has not yet been decided; and
(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in one of their Amendments.

(4) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.

Miscellaneous

9. This paragraph applies to—

(a) proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments,
(b) proceedings on any further Message from the Lords, and
(c) proceedings of the kind mentioned in paragraph 7.

10. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings to which paragraph 9 applies.

11. Proceedings to which paragraph 9 applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

12. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings to which paragraph 9 applies shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

13. Where proceedings on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House would, by virtue of Standing Order No. 24 (Urgent matters), commence at a time when proceedings to which paragraph 9 applies are in progress, the proceedings on the Motion shall be postponed to the conclusion of the proceedings to which paragraph 9 applies.

14. If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which paragraph 9 applies, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

I suspect that most hon. Members will want to debate the substance of the Bill and the amendments, rather than the timetable motion. However, the Government have tabled a timetable motion to allow proper consideration of all those parts of the Bill, especially those parts in which hon. Members have expressed special interest—particularly the provisions on incapacity benefit, which we have arranged to debate first, so that they will be debated in prime time and proper consideration is given to them.

I shall not say anything more now—

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Darling: Yes, I certainly shall, but in a moment. I was going to say that I did not plan to take up any more


of the House's time now, so that we could get on to the real meat of the debate. However, as the hon. Gentleman has intervened, I shall give way to him.

Mr. McLoughlin: Will the Secretary of State explain the Government's thinking on allowing business to collapse early on Monday, but timetabling today's business?

Mr. Darling: As the hon. Gentleman should know—he is an Opposition Whip—that is a matter not for me, but for the business managers.
I do not have anything to add now. If hon. Members desire the Government's reply to any particular point, I shall deal with it.

Mr. David Willetts: The Opposition strongly oppose this guillotine, but we shall not divide the House on it, as a Division would eat into valuable time that we need to devote to the Bill's substance. I merely state how unhappy we are that the Government have managed the business in the past few days in such a manner as to limit scrutiny of the Bill to one extremely cramped sitting. It would have been perfectly possible to have the two-day debate on the Bill that Opposition Members requested.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) is absolutely right to say that it was extraordinary that we spent Monday debating the Record Copies of Acts motion, which was essentially concerned with whether Acts of Parliament should be printed on paper or vellum. We have spent a day on vellum, and we shall now have a day on disability benefits, widows' benefits, IR 35, and a host of other matters. It demonstrates a bizarre set of priorities.
We strongly deprecate the fact that it was not possible to find two days for a debate, and are confident that it would have been perfectly possible to debate all the relevant matters without needing a guillotine.
The Government are terrified of challenge and scrutiny. What a contrast with the promises in their original consultation document on welfare reform, which, in the foreword's final paragraph, states:
It will take time. Frank Field"—
those were the days—
has started the process in this Green Paper. Now that the process is under way, we want all the nation to be part of it. There will be consultation and time for discussion at every stage.
That promise was signed by "Tony Blair, Prime Minister". We know how much it was worth.
I should also like very briefly to mention the extraordinary events of last night, when the Government tabled a guillotine motion that would have made out of order any vote, at any stage, on any amendment not tabled by the Government. That was an outrageous attempt to restrict parliamentary scrutiny. However, under pressure from hon. Members on both sides of the House, the Government withdrew their initial guillotine motion, revised it and tabled the motion that we are now debating. The lesson that I draw from the episode is that Ministers

were trying to bully the House. Hon. Members on both sides stood up to the bully. We did it last night on procedure and we can do it tonight on the substance.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Willetts: I do not propose to give way. I have spoken very briefly. I oppose the motion, but I do not intend to press for a Division.

Mr. Kaufman: As the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) will not give way, may I take one minute of the House's time to ask a rhetorical question? If the Conservatives believe not having enough time to discuss such issues is reprehensible, why, when they were in government, did they regularly kill Bills proposed by Labour Members to help the disabled simply by calling out "object"? Perhaps they could inscribe that on vellum and explain it.
If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's concessions of £200 million are not enough, perhaps the Conservatives could explain how much more they would spend and how they would raise the money. Time may be limited, but they have an opportunity to respond to questions that cry out for an answer, in view of the hypocrisy that pervades their party on the issue.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I certainly cannot answer the rhetorical question from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). I have some sympathy with his expression of concern. However, the guillotine motion is different from most of those that have come before the House under successive Governments. We have always opposed them and shall continue to do so. We would have opposed the motion in the Division Lobby this evening, but we want to avoid taking useful time out of the debate.
The motion is particularly disreputable. I hope that Labour Members will analyse it carefully. The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats made it clear to the Leader of the House last week that we were only too happy to devote two days to this very important Bill. Two days were available. On the past two nights, debates have petered out and the House has risen early because the subjects did not deserve the time allocated to them.
The Government were unwilling to allocate two days to the Bill, not because they wanted to allocate less time, but because they did not want prime media time to be available to Back-Bench Labour Members. That is why the Bill has been compressed into this evening. We even offered to go beyond midnight tonight on the Bill, as did the Conservatives, to ensure that there was proper time for the consideration of all the amendments.
As the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) has said, the motion tabled last night was designed not to gag the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives, but to gag Labour Back Benchers who disagreed on principle with the Government. The guillotine motion is aimed not at the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats, but at those Labour Members—members of the governing party—who have dared to put their heads above the parapet. They should look at the motion in detail. Every part of it has


been designed deliberately to gag Labour Members who happen not to accept the control freak autocracy of their Front Benchers.
All hon. Members sitting opposite me—I trust that they are all honourable Members—should look carefully at how the Government have lost their nerve on the Bill. They are so proud of what they are doing that they are deliberately forcing it down the throats not of us or of the Conservatives, but of Labour Members. As the evening progresses, I hope that Labour Members will refuse to accept that dishonourable conduct.

Mr. Christopher Chope: The timetable will give little time between 10 o'clock and midnight to discuss the issue of service companies. The House should be aware of the distress that that will cause outside, particularly as the proposals on service companies were proposed on Report, which meant that they were unable to be subject to scrutiny in Committee. The proposals went to the other place, where they were subject to detailed scrutiny.
Between 10 o'clock and midnight, the House will have to discuss 150 Lords amendments and no fewer than 40 Government amendments to Lords amendments, most of which affect service companies. This demonstrates the contempt of the Government for entrepreneurs who cannot afford to take their holidays in Italy at somebody else's expense. Many individuals have taken time off today to come to this House to see our democracy at work, and they will find it most unlikely that there will be any proper debate on the amendments passed in another place. The Government have recognised that these amendments have substance, as they have tabled 40 amendments relating to them.
If the Government were to explain properly the implications of their 40 amendments—as they would have to have done in Committee—that would take up most of the two hours. The Government are steamrollering this provision through, and the people of this country should be aware of the utter contempt in which the Government hold them. This is yet another example of the Government's gross and unacceptable arrogance.

Mr. Darling: There is nothing unusual about a Government guillotining measures in the House. I was elected in 1987—by definition, much of the time since has been under Conservative Governments—and I can remember guillotine after guillotine being imposed by the Conservatives. I remember a Finance Bill one year in which a guillotine was imposed after only three or four hours of debate.
The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) might be interested to know that, on the Social Security Bill 1990, the Conservative Government imposed a guillotine of just three hours in a debate which sought to overturn 20 Lords amendments. We have several hours between now and midnight to debate essentially eight measures.
From my experience in the House, I believe that a timetable motion can sometimes lead to better and more debate than if time is taken up by vote after vote. These votes are sometimes provoked by Back Benchers—we have seen this from Conservative Members—simply as a filibustering exercise.
When we last debated the Bill—again under a timetable motion—the quality of the debate and the orderly and civil manner in which it was conducted were a credit to the House. Our proposals will achieve orderly debate, and if hon. Members organise and discipline themselves properly, all matters of concern will be fully and properly debated.

Mr. John Swinney: The Secretary of State has understandably chided the Conservatives for the hypocrisy of their stance on guillotines. Will he share with the House his hypocrisy as, when he was in opposition, he would have said the same thing that the Conservatives are saying now?

Mr. Darling: I have always believed that there is a case for timetabling a lot of Government business—it would be much better debated if that were the case.
Turning to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), I do not know what the Liberal Democrats' definition of prime time is. However, I would have thought that if this House has prime time, this is it. Business starts at 3.30 pm every day. We have arranged for probably the most controversial part of the Bill to be discussed in prime time—in good time for the evening news bulletins and tomorrow's newspapers. The hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that it would be better if we went on into the middle of the night. I do not know if that is the Liberal Democrats' prime time, but to me prime time is now. The Government are actually facilitating debate in prime time.

Mr. Tyler: Is the Secretary of State aware that both the main Opposition parties offered full consultation and co-operation in taking this stage of the Bill yesterday at this time, allowing two full days of debate?

Mr. Darling: I was not aware of that, but that is a matter for the usual channels to discuss—as they frequently do. I find the concern of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats for the well-being of my Labour colleagues interesting, but despite that—

Mr. Willetts: rose—

Mr. Darling: I was going to say that I sense that most hon. Members would like to get on to the substance of the Bill rather than discussing the timetable, but as a matter of courtesy I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Willetts: We have just discovered that the Secretary of State was not aware of the offer of two days. Was he aware of the original draft of the guillotine motion, which would have excluded all voting on any amendments other than the Government's?

Mr. Darling: Yes, I was, and this is a far better motion, showing that the Government are more than happy to have the debate. I do not shrink from that debate, and I urge the House now to move on to the substance of the business before us rather than spending any more time discussing a timetable motion that it would seem we are all largely agreed on.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Order of the House of 20th May 1999 be supplemented as follows—

Lords Amendments

1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at today's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight.

2.—(1) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order, namely:
Nos. 42 to 46, 1 to 41 and 47 to 191.
(2) Each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table.

TABLE


Lords amendments
Time for conclusion of proceedings


Nos. 42 to 46
7.00 p.m.


Nos. 1 to 34
10.00 p.m.


Nos. 35 to 41, 47 to 191
Midnight.

3.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2.
(2) The Speaker shall—

(a) put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and has not been decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, the Question on any further Amendment of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in the Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the Lords Amendment as amended,
(b) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment followed by the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended,
(c) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees with the Lords in a Lords Amendment, and
(d) put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.


(3) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.

Subsequent stages

4. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.

5. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

6. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion the Speaker shall—


(a) put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and has not been decided, and the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair,
(b) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message, and
(c) put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Reasons Committee

7. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.

8.—(1) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
(2) Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
(3) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) the Chairman shall—

(a) first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and has not yet been decided; and
(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in one of their Amendments.


(4) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.

Miscellaneous

9. This paragraph applies to—

(a) proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments,
(b) proceedings on any further Message from the Lords, and
(c) proceedings of the kind mentioned in paragraph 7.

10. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings to which paragraph 9 applies.

11. Proceedings to which paragraph 9 applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

12. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings to which paragraph 9 applies shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

13. Where proceedings on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House would, by virtue of Standing Order No. 24 (Urgent matters), commence at a time when proceedings to which paragraph 9 applies are in progress, the proceedings on the Motion shall be postponed to the conclusion of the proceedings to which paragraph 9 applies.

14. If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which paragraph 9 applies, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Madam Speaker: I must draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 1, 20, 33, 34, 40, 42 to 44, 46, 137 and 156, which are to be considered today. If the House agrees to any of these Lords amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Clause 57

INCAPACITY BENEFIT: RESTRICTION TO RECENT CONTRIBUTORS

Lords amendment: No. 42, to leave out clause 57.

Mr. Darling: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendments (c), (a), (b) and (d) related thereto, Lords amendment No. 43 and Government amendments (c), (a), (b), (d) and (e) related thereto, Lords amendments Nos. 44 and 45, Lords amendment No. 46 and amendments (a) to (d) in lieu thereof, and Lords amendment No. 183.

Mr. Darling: This part of the debate covers our proposed reforms of incapacity benefit and severe disablement allowance. The proposals, originally made by the Government and now amended by the House of Lords, are part of a wider package of support for disabled people.
I want to set our proposed amendments in lieu of the Lords amendments in their proper context. They are part of a wider package that will provide more help for disabled children through increased benefits, with an extra £37 for severely disabled three and four-year-olds; and up to £26.40 more for people disabled at birth, or from an early age. Both those increases are made possible by the Bill.
The new disability income guarantee will provide £5 more a week for single people and £8 for a couple. The disabled persons tax credit is worth at least £155 a week, underpinned by the new deal for disabled people. We are also providing £140 million to help carers and introducing new pension rights.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said earlier this afternoon, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 has now been implemented and the Disability Rights Commission set up to secure civil rights for disabled people. That has all been delivered by this Labour Government and opposed by the Conservative party.
In two years, we have done more to help disabled people than the Tories did in 18, and we have a lot more to do. It is important for the House to understand that there are two principles underpinning our approach and our reforms. The first is that we need to do more for people who need help most and the second is that we need to build a welfare state that reflects both the world of today and the needs of tomorrow, promoting work for

those who can—including the 1 million disabled people who want to work—and providing far more security than in the past for those who cannot.

Mr. Steve Webb: Of those 1 million disabled people who want to work, how many will receive the disabled persons tax credit?

Mr. Darling: That of course depends on the take-up. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman in the nicest possible way that if he had had his way there would not be a new deal for disabled people. He opposed the new deal. He cannot have it both ways. We are providing help that has never been there before; it would certainly not have been there under a Conservative Government, and the Liberals have also opposed the key measures that we have taken.
I want to deal with our proposals on severe disablement allowance. The existing SDA is inefficient and poorly targeted at those whom it was originally meant to help. It is worth remembering that nearly 70 per cent. of people on SDA are on income support. The allowance was meant to help various groups, and children in particular, but I do not believe that it does so. The first thing that our reforms will achieve is to do more for people who need help most. Right now the system is not doing enough, but this Bill starts to put that right.
We want to do more for the many people disabled from birth, and in childhood, who have had no chance to work and no chance to make national insurance contributions. Today, those children get so little—£54.40 a week—that they need income support for the rest of their lives. No decent Government can tolerate that and certainly no Labour Government can tolerate it.
We are reforming SDA and providing more help for disabled young people by giving them incapacity benefit without asking them to satisfy the usual conditions. That will mean that they will get nearly £27 more every week. That is the right, decent and fair thing to do and it will mean that 175,000 people will be better off. The reform is long overdue and should be supported. I urge my hon. Friends to support it.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I accept without reservation the need for those young people to get additional help, but why has that to be at the expense of other disabled people? Should not the reform be funded from the 1p that the Chancellor took off income tax instead?

Mr. Darling: The right hon. Gentleman should remember two points. First, as I have said, severe disability allowance is so low that nearly 70 per cent. of those in receipt of it rely on income support and only a minority see any benefit from it. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman welcomes the additional help that we are providing for young children. The second point concerns spending, and many of my hon. Friends have also asked about that. It is true that the measures before the House today will, in the long term, achieve savings. That is of necessity, because of the way that the system works. However, as a result of measures that the Government have taken in the past two years, we are spending £195 million on the new deal for disabled people; £79 million on the new ONE service, which gives better help and guidance through the benefits system; £30 million on rehabilitation and retention pilots; £15 million on disabled children; and £40 million on the


disabled person's tax credit. We have also introduced new linking rules to help people try out work and not lose their benefit entitlement. We have introduced the disability income guarantee and are spending £140 million on the carers strategy. In the long term, £7 billion will be credited to disabled people and carers through the new state second pension.
The Government are happy to spend more money on disabled people. That is the right thing to do. It is what the public expect us to do, but they also expect us to examine the social security system from time to time and ask whether it is up to date and reflects modern conditions, so that we make sure that all the money we spend goes to those whom the public want to be supported. They want the new deal and they want carers and the severely disabled to be helped. We are doing that, and I am proud of the fact that a Labour Government will spend more this Parliament, and more in years to come, on disabled people. That is what people elected us to do, but they also asked us not to shrink from examining the system and bringing it up to date.

Mr. Eric Pickles: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that people with incomes above income support levels are wealthy? Is not it true that if someone with 80 per cent. disability has £3,000 of savings, £8,000 of capital or a spouse who works, he or she will not receive anything?

Mr. Darling: I am certainly not saying that people on income support are wealthy. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the capital limits, about which he made no protest for some 12 years during the Tory Government. In our pensions Green Paper, published last December, we said that we wanted to do something about the capital limits, because we want to encourage people to save and to be better off. It is far better to ensure that we provide real help, properly directed, to those children who lost out.

Mr. Pickles: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Darling: No, I shall not let the hon. Gentleman back in, as he knows that this debate is timetabled. However, if he is so bothered about people who are disabled or on low incomes, he must ask himself why he was part of a Government who, for years, did nothing about that problem.
I give way to the one member of the Conservative party who is sitting on the Opposition Back Benches.

Mr. Julian Brazier: As the Secretary of State knows, I served all the way through the Standing Committee considering the Bill. He has made the point about achieving value for money in welfare spending, but does he accept that there is no surer way to boost welfare spending unproductively than through the introduction of more and more means tests, which discourage people from helping themselves and from saving?

Mr. Darling: The Tories doubled means testing in their 18 years in power, and the hon. Gentleman did not object once. Another way to boost welfare spending without achieving any sense of direction is through the tabling of amendments in another place that would cost £4 billion. That is what the Tories have done, even though they

cannot fund the costs incurred and cannot explain how those amendments would be paid for. The Government are ensuring that help is directed to those people who need it most. At the same time, we are ensuring that the benefits system is up to date.
I turn now to the two changes that we are introducing to incapacity benefit. The first thing to emphasise—and I shall do so repeatedly, as it is so important—is that the proposed changes are for the future. No existing beneficiary at the time when the changes are introduced—probably in 2001—will be affected by anything that we propose today.
Our proposal is that some of the early retirement income—the occupational pensions—that people on incapacity benefit draw down should be taken into account. Anyone designing a benefit system today would make sure that it provided most help for those most in need. I do not believe that we can ignore the fact that times have changed. Fifty years ago, only a minority of people had private pension cover: today, the majority have. The result is that many people now leave the labour market early with good incomes from private cover.
As I said earlier, it is right that the Government should examine the social security system to make sure that it reflects such changes. That is what will happen in the future. People have occupational pensions—good pensions, in many cases—and draw down on them to replace income in precisely the same way that people took up the original incapacity benefit. It is right that the cost of that early retirement should be shared and that account be taken of the income that those people receive.
I have listened to the concerns about the threshold that have been raised by hon. Members of all parties, and I have paid particular attention to what has been said by Labour Members. I said that I would reflect on what hon. Members had to say after the Bill left this House in May. I have done that, and have tabled further proposals. However, I remind the House of what we have already done, and of what we now propose.
We are already exempting people with the severest disabilities—the group for whom disability income guarantee is intended, and to whom the rules simply will not apply. However, we are going further than that. We are raising the threshold that I originally proposed from £50 to £85.
What will be the effect of that? It will mean that an occupational pension drawn down early will not be taken into account until all income—that is, incapacity benefit and income from a private pension—exceeds £151 a week. People will not lose all their incapacity benefit until their pension income reaches nearly £220 a week. For couples, the figure will be about £15,000 a year; for people with two children, it will be about £18,000. The House should remember that some of the people involved, depending on their condition, will get non-means tested disability living allowance on top of that. That allowance is worth up to £72 a week.
By raising that threshold to £85 a week, a further 100,000 people will be exempted from my original proposal. I believe that this measure ought to be supported by hon. Members of all parties. It is a significant change, and it is the right thing to do.
It is important to remember that about one third of people receiving incapacity benefit have occupational pensions, and that half of them are in the top half of the income


bracket. It is right to take that change into account. The majority of people on IB will not be affected as they do not have occupational pensions, and not many of them have pensions of more than £85 a week. Because we want to spend far more on people who have lost out in the past, we need to examine the system to see whether it reflects modern conditions. The Government should not ignore the fact that half the people receiving IB who have occupational pensions are in the top half of the income bracket. However, I repeat that people who do not have income from a private pension of £85 a week or more will not be affected.

Mr. Frank Field: When my right hon. Friend says that the majority of people are in the top half of the income scale, is that before or after they are paid benefit? Will the means test be based on households or on individual earnings?

Mr. Darling: I am talking about individuals, and about their total income.
I should like to say a word about the amendment originally tabled in the other place by Lord Ashley.

Mr. Alan Williams: We very much appreciate all that is being done to help disabled people. But if the £85 is a set figure, it will reduce in value by 25 per cent. over 10 years, and by 50 per cent. over 20 years. Therefore, progressively fewer people will benefit from it. Can my right hon. Friend explain what the then Under-Secretary—now the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—could not at the last vote? Why do we think it impossible for a millionaire to pay more than 40 per cent. of his income in taxation, while it is all right for a retired disabled person to lose 50 per cent. of the value of his income and then to pay tax on the remainder?

Mr. Darling: Let me deal first with my right hon. Friend's comment about the taper. I do not think that it is right to compare the tax rates with the tapers in the benefit system. As my right hon. Friend well knows, the tapers operated in the benefit system are generally much higher than 50 per cent. The housing benefit taper is 65 per cent., and the taper of 50 per cent. proposed in this measure is one of the lowest in the system. Even the working families tax credit which is, quite rightly, very generous, has a taper of 55 per cent.
My right hon. Friend also raised a very important point about the figure of £85. Let me repeat what I said about the original proposal of £50 when the matter was last before the House. The figure of £85 is provided for in the Bill—that is the minimum. The Government will review that figure every year to ensure that it does not steadily erode the value of people's occupational pensions, as my right hon. Friend suggests. I believe that the Government's proposed increase from £50 to £85 is right—it is about the level of an average occupational pension. I give the House a clear, unequivocal commitment that we will keep that figure under review to ensure that it is increased and does not erode the value of people's savings.

Mr. Alan Williams: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and accept the sincerity of his offer. However, future Secretaries of State of other denominations may not

be as kindly disposed. To achieve his objective, could he not provide for this most readily by including in the Bill the indexation of this sum?

Mr. Darling: My right hon. Friend raises a pretty fundamental point, and I am sorry that I do not have an answer. I do not know any way of putting in legislation a provision that cannot be tampered with by succeeding Governments. If there were any way of doing that, many Governments would have done it. The Conservatives are pledged to slash social security spending if they get back into office. Given their commitment to reducing everybody's income tax and corporation tax every year, it does not take much imagination to realise that they will have to cut social security spending with a vengeance.
Our proposal is better than indexation, which might make only a small difference to the figure of £85. I assure my right hon. Friend on behalf of the Government and those of my successors that I can bind, that we shall keep the figure under review to ensure that its value does not erode and thus adversely affect people's savings. Indexation would mean that the increase might be a lot less than that which the Government might want to introduce in future. Therefore, I give my right hon. Friend an undertaking to review the figure, but I cannot go further.

Dr. Lynne Jones: The Bill will not be implemented until 2001. Will my right hon. Friend give a commitment to review the figure of £85 upwards to take account of increases in earnings or prices between now and 2001? Will he also give a commitment at least to annual uprating to take account of price movements?

Mr. Darling: I cannot add anything to my previous reply that I shall review the figure annually to ascertain whether we should raise it to avoid eroding the value of people's increased savings.
I did not realise that my hon. Friend was a fan of price uprating only. If she is, she tempts me to follow her. She probably expects us to do something better than that from time to time, but, if she will settle for price rating, I may one day follow her down that road—if not any other.

Dr. Jones: Will my right hon. Friend answer my question about uprating between now and 2001, when the Bill is introduced? The sum of £85 will not be worth as much in 2001 as it is today.

Mr. Darling: I have answered that question. The Government will keep the figure of £85 under review. The increase that we have made from £50 to £85 is right, but we will review the figure every year. We do not promise to uprate it every year, but we will review it to ensure that it does not adversely affect people's savings.
I want to comment briefly on the amendment that was tabled in another place by Lord Ashley. I want to focus on those in greatest need, and give them the most help. If the amendment were accepted, people who took early retirement and claimed incapacity benefit would continue to receive it until their private pensions reached £435 a week. The Government's proposals are sensible and right, and they should be supported.
The second change is our proposal to restore the link between incapacity benefit and work. We shall make two significant changes to our original proposals. First, we shall take account of the problems of people who suffer from degenerative conditions, such as multiple sclerosis or Parkinson's disease, which steadily reduce the ability to work. Both Houses expressed the fear that people in that position might lose entitlement to incapacity benefit. Our proposals will ensure that people who get the disabled person's tax credit and earn below the lower earnings limit will be able to get credits into the national insurance system and receive incapacity benefit. We have already done that for carers who receive invalid care allowance. Both groups will get incapacity benefit even if it is more than three years since they contributed.
I tabled the second change to our original proposals on Monday. It provides that contributions in the previous three—not only the previous two—tax years will count. Both changes will make a great difference to cases that have been raised with me in the House and elsewhere. For example, if the provision were in place now, someone who claimed incapacity benefit next month could receive it on the basis of contributions paid in April 1995. The contributions would be satisfied by 12 weeks of work for someone on the national minimum wage and a mere four weeks for someone on average earnings.
We have also introduced new linking rules, which mean that people who have received incapacity benefit, try out a job and find that it does not work, will not lose their entitlement to incapacity benefit. The one-year linking rule—two years for those receiving the disabled persons tax credit—ensures that.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is it true that the mechanics of operating the Government's scheme will be markedly more expensive than the proposals put forward by Lord Ashley? Can my right hon. Friend provide to the House the technical advice that he has received from actuaries and others about the sheer cost of the mechanics of operating the Government's proposals?

Mr. Darling: No, I do not think that the operation of our scheme will be more expensive. The mechanics of operating the system are the same no matter what the monetary limits happen to be. I am more than happy to allow my hon. Friend to speak to Government actuaries. I am sure that they would relish the opportunity to engage him for many hours, if he so wished, on the subject, although the Benefits Agency will probably have to implement the proposals. If he wants further information on that, I shall provide it. I do not think that it makes any difference whether the monetary limits are £85, £95 or £120; the mechanics of implementing the system are exactly the same.

Mr. Swinney: I do not wish to interrupt the dialogue on the faculty of actuaries' next consideration of these issues, but may I return the Secretary of State to his point about the concessions that he announced on Monday night? Will he share with the House what persuaded him of the merits of moving to include the last three years, and not the last two years, of contributions? Why did his proposal not go further?

Mr. Darling: On the move from two to three years, my objective when I published the proposals about 12 months ago was to ensure that there was a recent connection between someone working and his claiming incapacity benefit. Incapacity benefit was originally designed to replace income for people who were out of work. There is no exact science behind the choice of two years or three years, but I believe that three years is a sensible link. As I said, the period between someone having worked and his claiming incapacity benefit might effectively be four and a half years.
There is another important point. The Tories' only answer to long-term unemployment was incapacity benefit. There was no other help. Too often, people who came out of work were left to languish on the dole queues. The conditions of many of them deteriorated and they went on to incapacity benefit. This Government have introduced a large range of measures to help people who lose their jobs to get back into work. We have not only introduced tax and benefits changes, but provided help through the new deal and through the new ONE service. That help was never available in the past. We do not believe that, if people lose their jobs because their employer closes down or because of structural changes, that should be it and they should left high and dry with only one option available to them. They should not have to become sick so that they can get enough money to make ends meet. That can never be a humane policy response to the problems that they face.

Mr. Alan Simpson: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will remember the briefing notes that he sent out about how the new proposals would work. In them, he cited several examples of the way in which welfare reforms would affect different people. One of the examples in the original briefing referred to Dave, an unemployed binman who had been made redundant six years earlier and then suffered a stroke. However, Dave disappeared from the corrected version that was published later. Will the circumstances of someone with an intermittent employment record be covered by the proposed framework that my right hon. Friend now intends to put in place?

Mr. Darling: I shall set about a search for Dave as soon as I sit down, but I do not think that he has disappeared. I shall try to answer my hon. Friend's point—if not for Dave, then for Dave's mates or his replacement.
As I said to the House a few moments ago, the contribution conditions can be satisfied by someone on average earnings having completed four weeks' work in the preceding three years. The period is 12 weeks for someone on the minimum wage. I have also said that, when someone is trying out work after perhaps having been on benefit, he will be able to be credited back into the system through the credits that we are offering. In addition, people with degenerative conditions will also be helped because of the changes that we are making through the disabled persons tax credit.
Our objective is to ensure that, as far as possible, people who can work are helped to do so through a variety of means. We also want to ensure that when a person is working intermittently, the contribution conditions are such that if. eventually, they cannot continue to work, they are not stopped from receiving incapacity benefit.
The reforms are part of a wider package of support for disabled people. The disability income guarantee, the disabled person's tax credit and the Disability Rights Commission are all welcomed by most people—although they are all, of course, opposed by the Tory party. The reforms are also part of a wider welfare reform Bill before the House. We are introducing new measures to help people to get back to work because we are not prepared to put up with people being left with absolutely no help, through no fault of their own, because they have lost their job.
The Bill also introduces stakeholder pensions, which will help people with an intermittent work record. It delivers pension rights on divorce. It delivers new help for bereaved families with young children. It is worth noting that about 175,000 people disabled from birth or a young age will gain, and that nearly 175,000 other people will gain from the disability income guarantee. About 40,000 women will gain from the proposed bereavement changes. About 25,000 women will benefit from the extension of statutory maternity pay to low-paid women, and 960,000 people—nearly 1 million—on low pay will benefit from the changes that we are making in national insurance contributions. Some millions will benefit from the stakeholder changes.
The Bill delivers real help for disabled children, and others who have never had help. It is part of a package that delivers real reform, real help, all of it delivered for the first time ever by this Labour Government, all of it opposed by the Tories. Their opposition tonight is based, not on principle, but on naked opportunism of a sort that we have not seen for many years.
I believe that the Government should be supported. We have a record to be proud of. The Bill should be supported, and the amendments that I put before the House should be supported. I commend them to the House.

Mr. Willetts: The Secretary of State has spoken as though he is bravely reforming an Attlee welfare state that has not been touched or reviewed or reformed for 50 years. That may be why he is so dismissive of the rebels on his own side and of the position that we, in the Conservative party, have adopted. He was pretty rude about his own rebels. He was quoted in The Guardian as saying:
There are some in the Labour party who would vote against four sheets of blank paper.

Mr. Darling: I am used to good old-fashioned political knockabout, but what the hon. Gentleman just said is not true.

Mr. Willetts: If the right hon. Gentleman is denying the quote that appeared in The Guardian, I am happy to accept that correction.
The rebels can speak for themselves. I shall keep my remarks short so that as many as possible of them have an opportunity to speak. I want to tackle head on what the Secretary of State said at the end of his speech about what he described as the "naked opportunism" of our approach. I remind the Secretary of State that we constructed incapacity benefit. The benefit that he is messing around with tonight was introduced in 1995. That benefit was introduced while my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) was Secretary of State for Social Security. Conservative Members are perfectly entitled to defend a benefit that we constructed.
The Secretary of State is not suddenly examining disability benefits that have not been touched for 50 years: he is undermining a benefit that was introduced in the House and implemented only a few years ago.
As a result of the changes that we introduced when we were in office, both the number of incapacity benefit claimants and expenditure on incapacity benefit are falling. When the benefit was introduced, the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends attacked us for cutting expenditure, but we deliberately and carefully constructed a benefit that we thought correctly balanced the control of expenditure and fairness to disabled people.

Mr. Terry Rooney: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, in fact, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 enacted a change of name and up to a 50 per cent. reduction in benefit? He did not construct a benefit; he destructed a benefit system.

Mr. Willetts: Over time, reductions in entitlement to benefit were introduced and, certainly, one of our biggest single changes was to remove the earnings-related supplement to the previous invalidity benefit. The reason why we did that—it was explicitly set out at the time—was that there was an increasing shift towards pension provision among people who left work early as a result of their growing disability. My predecessors—Secretaries of State in the previous Conservative Government—explicitly put that argument before the House. The justification for the measure was precisely that it would be part of a mixed economy in which there would be increasing access to pension savings. We oppose what the Secretary of State is doing because he is attacking part of our vision of the development of the social security system. We are defending exactly the argument that we used when we introduced the benefit only a few years ago.

Mr. Tom Levitt: The hon. Gentleman is defending a system that left some disabled people too poor to qualify for incapacity benefit.

Mr. Willetts: I will not say that the system in 1997 was ideal. I am explaining that there was a logic to my right hon. and hon. Friends' construction of the benefit—consciously aiming at a mixture of occupational and personal pension provision and benefit. I thought that the vision of people increasingly having access to savings from pensions alongside benefit was one of the Government's principles too.
I have a copy of the Government's so-called "key messages on welfare reform". What does it say on the very front page? One of the bullet points refers to
Providing for the future with new stakeholder pensions and encouragement for those who can save to do so.
I should like to hear the Secretary of State explain how the measures before the House are consistent with that statement from him of the Government's commitment to encouraging savings. It is simply inconsistent.

Mr. Darling: rose—

Mr. Willetts: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to intervene to explain how penalising people for having an occupational pension is compatible with encouraging savings, I shall be very interested to hear him.

Mr. Darling: Of course it is the Government's objective to encourage saving for pensions and other eventualities in later life. However, it has always been a principle of the social security system that there comes a point at which we take into account people's means. It is a bit rich for a member of a party that vastly extended the way in which the Government take into account people's savings to criticise such an eminently sensible proposal. When people draw down good early-retirement pensions, we should take some of them—over a threshold—into account.

Mr. Willetts: I remind the Secretary of State of what he said in "A New Contract for Welfare". I know that the document causes him considerable embarrassment, as his actions are increasingly departing from the principles that he set out in it, but principle 2 is as follows:
The public and private sector should work in partnership to ensure that, wherever possible, people are insured against foreseeable risks and make provision for their retirement.
That is the argument for people who are on incapacity benefit not being penalised for their entitlement to a retirement pension.

Mr. John Bercow: The Secretary of State's last intervention was woefully inadequate to meet the needs of the case. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in view of the more than halving of the savings ratio—from 10.6 per cent. to under 5 per cent—in the first quarter of 1999, as a direct consequence of the Government's policy decisions, the Secretary of State at least owes the House an explanation of what assessment he has made of the likely impact of the incapacity benefit changes on the savings ratio which he has been busily running down?

Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend is right. We have not heard from the Secretary of State any assessment of the long-term impact on behaviour of measures such as the one proposed. We have all learned from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that long-term implications for behaviour must be considered, as well as short-term apparent expenditure savings.
It is highly unlikely that the provisions will save the Secretary of State money. They will merely affect the way in which occupational pensions are provided and the terms on which people are entitled to them. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is right. The measure will deter people from occupational pension provision.
I shall risk another quotation from The Guardian. The Secretary of State may not disagree with it. It is from a document that was apparently circulating during our term in office. Clearly, ideas such as the one proposed by the Secretary of State were circulating under the previous Government. I shall quote from The Guardian the response of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), the then Secretary of State for Social Security:

I do not favour this approach. Apart from the disincentives to make private provision it would introduce, I think it would raise some very difficult questions about the future of the contributory benefit system before we have fully thought through the direction we want to take.
The then Secretary of State for Social Security was saying that measures such as the present Secretary of State is introducing were wrong because they would attack private occupational pension provision and undermine the contributory principle. My right hon. Friend was right then, which is why he won the argument then.
The Secretary of State is not engaged in some bold Blairite reform of the welfare state. He is taking the tired old options from the Treasury cutting room floor of five years ago, and recycling them as though they were part of some bold vision for the future of social security. They are not. They are the options that were rejected then. We deliberately and consciously rejected them. They were not part of the model of incapacity benefit as we introduced it. We were right to reject them then, and that is why we shall vote against them again tonight.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I have just joined the debate, but I heard my hon. Friend refer to bold Blairite options in social security. Does he know of any such thing?

Mr. Willetts: The gap between the rhetoric in the document and the tired and desperate measures before the House lead one to doubt whether there is any such thing.
Let me scrutinise in more detail the means test proposed by the Secretary of State to penalise people for their occupational pensions. It is a means test hitherto unknown in the social security system. It does not take account of people's income in general. It simply takes account of one form of income. It penalises people only if they have an occupational or personal pension. They can have as much money as they like in a building society account and they can have PEPs, TESSAs and other financial savings. The one thing that they must not have is an occupational pension. That is a bizarre route for a Government who claim that they want to encourage occupational pension provision.

Mr. James Plaskitt: There is a gap in the hon. Gentleman's argument. If he is arguing that the measures are an attack on savings and occupational pensions, why did he support his right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) in 1994, when the legislation introducing the benefit was going through? The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden said:
Too many people regard invalidity benefit as a readily available supplement to their occupational pensions when they take early retirement."—[Official Report, 24 January 1994; Vol. 236, c. 37.]
If that was an argument for reform then, why does not the hon. Gentleman support the argument for reform now?

Mr. Willetts: That was the argument for removing the earnings-related supplement. That is precisely the point. The argument was that people could not have the earnings-related supplement plus occupational pension provision. That is why we moved to a benefit that has a flat rate rather than an earnings-related element. That is


precisely the reason for the benefit as it is currently constructed, as I tried to explain to the House a moment ago.

Mr. Rooney: rose—

Mr. Willetts: I have already accepted an intervention from the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State's Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey), is urging me to accept the hon. Gentleman's intervention because she does not want any of her colleagues to speak in the debate. The fact that she wants me to accept the hon. Gentleman's intervention is another argument against doing so.
I referred briefly to the means test. I shall refer to two other pernicious aspects of the Government's proposals—the combined impact of the 50 per cent. rate of withdrawal, and the fact that the benefit is taxable. We accept that the benefit is taxable, of course. We regard as unacceptable the combined rate of 73 per cent. It will impose much higher rates of combined benefit withdrawal and taxation on people on low incomes than the Government say they are prepared to accept for people on high incomes.
The attack on the contributory principle is unacceptable. No private insurance company or private pension scheme could get away with changing the conditions for entitlement in the way that the Government propose. They would probably be breaking the law and would certainly be named and shamed by Ministers. People have a legitimate expectation, on the basis of their national insurance contributions, which the Government are undermining with no clear assessment of the distributional impact. There is no targeting or focusing on people with low incomes. They are simply changing the contributions test for receipt of the benefit in order to save money and, despite what the Secretary of State said, there is no assessment of the overall distributional impact of their measures.
We have made it clear that we are willing to look at ways in which further savings can be achieved in incapacity benefit—even though the measures that we introduced are already reducing the amount of expenditure on it. That should be done by properly policing the entitlement to benefit in the first place. That is what the all work test is supposed to do. The Disability Benefits Consortium is right to say:
If the Government believes that there are people on IB who are not sick or disabled then the way to deal with this is through the design and operation of the All Work Test.
That would have been the right way to set about achieving what the Secretary of State claims is his objective. These random measures, plucked from the cutting room floor of the Treasury, will have a distributional impact that he cannot defend. They will have a long-term effect on behaviour that will be perverse and damaging. They will undermine people's confidence in the contributory principle in which the Secretary of State claims he believes. They are measures that the House should reject.

Mr. Roger Berry: I would love to spend some time attacking the Tories' record on disability issues, but I am here to speak in support of amendments

in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Should the opportunity arise, which I am pretty certain it will not, I should like to press them to a Division later.
I ask myself why the Government are pursuing this course of action on incapacity benefit. What are the problems? The first problem is that the Government's proposals will reduce benefit for disabled people who are unable to work. Those disabled people, as future claimants, will have paid the existing national insurance contributions and been judged unfit for work according to a medical test with criteria set down by the Government of the day. Why should future claimants who have paid the current contributions and satisfied that medical test be worse off? For the life of me, I cannot answer that question.
I can say how many people will be affected. Even under my right hon. Friend's revised threshold, 310,000 disabled people who are unable to work will be worse off as a result of the proposals. A total of 110,000 will be worse off because of the restriction on the entitlement conditions whereby contribution has to have been made in the past three years, and 200,000 will be worse off because of the means test on those who are able to access incapacity benefit. That is my first problem with the proposals. Why are we making disabled people who are unable to work worse off? I cannot understand it.
The second reason why I cannot understand the proposal is that it is distracting attention from the path-breaking and progressive policies of this Government in support of disabled people. No Government have been as radical and progressive on rights for disabled people as this Government have been. The new Disability Rights Commission provides support, through the new deal and the disabled persons tax credit to enable disabled people to get back to work, and measures in the Bill provide increased benefits for severely disabled people. Those and many other measures show that this is the most progressive, ground-breaking Government on the rights of disabled people. I cannot for the life of me understand why they have allowed all that to be cast in the shadow of these cuts in social security benefits.
4.45 pm
Like many of my colleagues, I spent the summer attending meetings to promote the Disability Rights Commission. Within 20 seconds of my sitting down, people asked me why cuts were being made in invalidity benefit. I am concerned that those cuts are damaging the Government's wider programme.
I have not received a letter, a fax, a telephone call or an e-mail in support of the proposals. I do not know of an organisation of or for disabled people that supports them; indeed, I do not know of any organisation that supports them. I cannot find a member of the Government's disability rights task force who supports them. I have had some difficulty finding hon. Friends who honestly support these proposals. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Until today perhaps.
It has been said that those of us who feel strongly about this matter reject the notion of welfare reform. That is not true. I am a passionate supporter of welfare reform, including most of the measures that the Government have introduced. I checked my dictionary about the meaning of the word "reform", and it says that to reform is to improve. Parliamentary reform and reform of the House


of Lords is an improvement in the way in which Parliament and the House of Lords reflect the wider community in which we live. I cannot see how reducing benefit entitlement to disabled people who are unable to work can be described as an improvement. It is not an improvement for them.
Let us be clear: we are talking about incapacity benefit of £66.75 a week. We are not debating the case for a higher level of benefit. It is a debate about retaining the benefit for people who have paid contributions under the current system and are judged unfit for work according to criteria set down by the Government.
What reasons have been given for the measures? We were told that the previous Government used incapacity benefit to disguise unemployment, and that is why something must be done about it. That is an irrelevant point, because the Bill relates to future claimants. It does not matter what the previous Government did.
We were then told that spending on incapacity benefit was increasing. It is not: it is decreasing. It has been falling consistently since the benefit was introduced in 1995. We were told that we should means-test incapacity benefit because more people now have occupational or personal pensions. That was the justification used in 1995 when the previous Government removed the earnings-related component. That is a matter of public record.
The same argument could be made about the basic state pension. Many pensioners have occupational or personal pensions, not least because all Governments rightly encourage people to make personal provision for their retirement. The Government are opposed to means-testing the basic state pension. Why? Because that would penalise those who have saved for retirement, it would discourage future saving, and it is a contributory benefit.
The same is true of incapacity benefit. More means testing further reduces the incentive to save. It reduces benefit take-up, encourages dishonesty, and is costly to administer.

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I have been listening carefully to what my hon. Friend has been saying, and I think that it should be knocked on the head at an early stage. He erred in this respect: at Question Time the Prime Minister gave an unambiguous answer, making it clear that there was no thin end of the wedge, and that there was no thought that the retirement pension would be means tested through the taking into account of occupational pensions.

Mr. Berry: I did not mean to suggest that. Indeed, I did not suggest that. I specifically said that the Government were entirely opposed to means testing of the basic state pension, and expressed my strong support for their opposition. I raised the matter in order to suggest that the principles involved in not means-testing the basic state pension were the same as those involved in not means-testing incapacity benefit.
We are told that incapacity benefit was never intended for people who have been unemployed. In fact, it has always been the case that people can move from unemployment benefit to incapacity benefit, provided that they meet the contribution conditions and have the relevant medical test. The benefit was intended

specifically to protect those whose health deteriorated while they were unemployed. If the benefit was never intended for those who had been unemployed, why did the contribution conditions never reflect that fact? The present contribution conditions are the same as those for invalidity benefit, which preceded incapacity benefit, and the same as those for sickness benefit, which was introduced in 1948.
Finally—this is not the final point that I want to make, but I know that others wish to speak—we are told that the proposal is all about helping those in the greatest need; that it is about helping the most severely disabled. On 20 April, however, the Under—Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), said:
We are not introducing the changes because we want to make savings to pay for improvement of other benefits for disabled people. We are introducing the changes because we believe that each one is right and proper and will improve the welfare of disabled people."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 20 April 1999; c. 874-75.]
Both those arguments cannot be correct, but one of them must be, and I think that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is right. The argument that savings in incapacity benefit are needed for help to be concentrated on the most severely disabled does not stand up. There will still be about £450 million worth of savings in incapacity benefit as a result of the most recent proposals—far more than the very welcome extra spending on disabled children and young people.
In any event, what would be the moral justification for increasing help for disabled children and young people, and reducing the benefits of other disabled people on low incomes to pay for it? Does not the whole of society have that responsibility?

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend must not persist in the argument that, by increasing spending on the most vulnerable, we are somehow removing money from other disabled people. We are not. The savings that we shall make by this means are long-term. As I said earlier—I am sure that my hon. Friend was present—we are spending more money now to help the very people whom he and I want to help. That is extra money, new to the system.

Mr. Berry: I was referring to provisions in the Bill. Of course I acknowledge the extra spending that the Government are undertaking elsewhere.
The Secretary of State has indicated that he will raise the means-test threshold from £50 to £85 a week, but that the taper will remain at 50p. I think that that will leave many disabled people who are unable to work on very low incomes—they will be significantly worse off. The means test would begin with a total income of less than £8,000 a year, and all incapacity benefit would be lost at a little over £11,000. Pensioners paying the standard rate of income tax would lose not 50p but 73p in the pound.

Mr. Tony McWalter: May I make a purely mathematical point? I agree with the drift of what my hon. Friend is saying. The clawback is high, but with a 22 per cent. tax rate the figure would be 61p, while with a 23 per cent. rate it would be 61.5p. One would have to do a bit of double accounting to arrive at 73p.

Mr. Berry: My understanding of the Bill is that the 50 per cent. relates to gross pension income. I am


prepared to re-read the Bill; perhaps I have misunderstood it. Whichever figure it is, however, those people will effectively pay more marginal tax than a millionaire: they will effectively pay far more tax than people on much higher incomes.
As the House will have gathered, I am not happy about the principle of means-testing incapacity benefit. I am deeply unhappy about it, but, like Lord Ashley and others in the other place, I have supported a compromise position, which is on the Order Paper. Its purpose was to reduce the impact on disabled people and to bring the matter to an end. Our threshold would be the level of the disability income guarantee—£128—which would provide a mechanism for uprating and safeguard the income of any disabled person with an income of less than £195 per week. I do not believe that, in this day and age, that is too generous. Reducing the taper to the standard income tax rate is not too generous, either.
It has been said that the proposal would exempt nearly everyone. That is not true. About 400,000 incapacity benefit recipients have a pension of over £50 a week—the original threshold level. The compromise would have rescued the poorest two thirds of those incapacity benefit recipients, while halving the Government's original savings. It was an honest attempt to meet the Government halfway.
I am sorry that the Government have felt unable to support that compromise, or anything near it. The Bill will return to the other place. I feel that, unfortunately, the best way for Members to show that they would like the Government to think again is to vote against the Government's motion to disagree with the Lords amendment. I feel that I have no alternative but, with very great regret, to vote against the Government's motion. I urge other right hon. and hon. Members to do the same.

Mr. Webb: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), who has a reputation for fighting on behalf of disabled people. Tonight, he is doing the same again and deserves to be listened to. On a recent BBC radio programme, he and I were bracketed together by the Secretary of State as "the forces of conservatism", which is news to both of us. I will not lavish any further praise on the hon. Gentleman lest I undermine his position.
The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) discussed the history of the attempt to means-test incapacity benefit and rightly pointed out that it was considered and rejected by the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). Given what happened yesterday, the hon. Gentleman coyly failed to mention which person tried to foist on the previous Secretary of State the means-testing of incapacity benefit: one M. X. Portillo.
In the circumstances, perhaps the hon. Member for Havant does not want to remind the House that Mr. Portillo, who hopes to re-enter the House shortly, tried to persuade the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden to means-test incapacity benefit. All I can say is that the Secretary of State is doing what Michael Portillo wanted to do and the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden dared not do. It is a sad day when the Labour party has to deliver Michael Portillo's agenda.
We have discussed the marginal tax rates under the means test. The hon. Member for Kingswood was right. We clarified the position with the Library yesterday. It rang the Department of Social Security, which said that the 50 per cent. rate will apply to gross occupational pension income. If I am wrong, I will be happy to be interrupted by the Secretary of State. That 50 per cent. is on top of the income tax rate of 23 per cent., so, for every pound above the threshold, whatever it should be, someone who has saved through an occupational pension will lose 73p.
The Secretary of State told us that the taper of 50 per cent. was low for the benefits system—the Department of Social Security could be much nastier in means-testing. It set one of 50 per cent. or more on the working families tax credit and 60 per cent. on housing benefit. It is set one of 73 per cent. for people who save through company pensions—[Interruption.] The Minister of State says that the taper could be 100. Yes—if the price is right, and the Department really puts its mind to it—it could be 100.
5 pm
Does the hon. Gentleman, who has responsibility for pensions, really think that a 73 per cent. taper gives people an incentive to make more occupational savings? If he were in his 50s—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): He is.

Mr. Webb: I was not going to speculate on that. However, given that he is in his 50s, if he anticipated that early retirement might at some point be forced on him—who knows—does he think that, faced with a 73 per cent. marginal rate, it would be sensible for him to put extra money into an occupation pension? Clearly, it would not be sensible to contribute more, as the marginal rate is undoubtedly a disincentive to save.
Modernisation has been the Secretary of State's principal defence of the policy, which the Government say is designed to reform the welfare state and bring it up to date. What is the central tenet of that reform, as we march confidently into the new millennium? It is means testing. The Secretary of State has discovered a new strategy for a new millennium, to build a new welfare state, founded on a bright new vision for dealing with today's realities. That vision and that strategy is means testing. How can means testing be modernisation?
I thought that one of Labour's proudest boasts was about the post-war Labour Government and their role in establishing the welfare state, of which contributory social insurance was an integral part. There is no doubt that the Secretary of State is playing an instrumental role in dismantling the welfare state.

Mr. Brazier: I am listening very carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech. Every time a Conservative Member makes a point on the principle of means testing, we hear, "That's what you did", but receive no coherent answer about the Government's policy. It will be very interesting to see whether the hon. Gentlemen receives a proper answer from the Government to his excellent question.

Mr. Webb: I should be most grateful for an answer to the question. Although the Government could easily point


out that the Tories doubled means testing—which is true, but regrettable—what is the Secretary of State's answer to my question? In a modern welfare state, why is it desirable to force more people on to the means test by limiting the contribution rules, means-testing occupational pensions and phasing out severe disablement allowance? How can that be the face of a modern welfare state? Is that the shape of things to come? We hear no answer.
The hon. Member for Kingswood raised the issue of means-testing the retirement pension. We all heard the Prime Minister say that he would not means-test the retirement pension, and I entirely welcome that assurance. However, once the principle has been breached, his successors, and those of the Secretary of State, will be able to tell the House, "We already means-test contributory benefits". All the arguments that the Secretary of State has used on incapacity benefit will be true in spades when applied to the retirement pension.

Angela Eagle: What about the jobseeker's allowance?

Mr. Webb: I am not sure why the Minister raises that, but assume that she does so because that was an example of the previous Government weakening the contributory principle. I expect that she opposed that change. Now, however, Ministers are engaged in a further undermining of the contributory principle.
I am sure that, in this Parliament, the Government will not means-test the retirement pension.

Dr. Lynne Jones: I might be able to enlighten the hon. Gentleman on that point. In 1987, in a debate on the Social Security Act 1988, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in opposing the means-testing of contributory unemployment benefits, said that those affected had
shown thrift and foresight in providing for themselves"—[Official Report, 2 November 1987; Vol. 121, c. 671.]
and that he opposed the means-testing of unemployment benefit.

Mr. Webb: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for drawing the House's attention to a previous comment by a leading member of the Government. The comment was true then, and it is true now.
My concern is not that the Government will means-test the retirement pension in this Parliament—we have the Prime Minister's assurance on that. However, what might happen in 10 or 15 years? The Minister of State has said that people retiring on the retirement pension will be living in penury. It is difficult enough to justify the current level of the retirement pension, but, after 10 or 15 years of price indexation, it will have fallen so far below the poverty line that there will be huge political pressure to put more money into it. At that point, a future Government may well say, "We will put money into the retirement pension, but do not want to do so for people with occupational pensions of £30,000 a year."
If we give in to the principle today, we shall be laying the future open to means-testing the retirement pension.
The Secretary of State has defended his attack on disabled people who have occupational pensions or dodgy contribution records by referring to the good things that

the Government are doing for some other disabled people. More times than I care to remember he has mentioned the disabled persons tax credit, which was an afterthought of Government policy. Disability working allowance—its predecessor—went to just 16,000 people. The bright, shiny new disabled persons tax credit, which is the Government's in-work strategy for disabled people, will go to an extra 6,000. If anyone wants to intervene and correct me on that, I shall be happy to give way.

Mr. Levitt: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are 2 million disabled people in employment and a further 1 million who are not in employment but would like to be. It is certain that a significant proportion will qualify for the disabled persons tax credit—far more than for the DWA.

Mr. Webb: The Government's projections for spending on the tax credit assume 22,000 recipients. Even if the figure were 30,000 or 50,000, what is that compared with the 1 million whom the Government say want to work and cannot? It is a drop in the ocean—a fig leaf to cover the huge cuts that the Government are making for people who are unfit to work.
The spurious argument about the situation being a form of hidden unemployment has been raised yet again. If there are people on incapacity benefit who should not be, why not stop them claiming it in the first place rather than introducing measures that affect not just those who should not be claiming, but those who have every right to claim?
There is a fundamental principle of universality involved. When someone turns up at an NHS hospital, we do not tell them to go away because they are well off or have BUPA cover. Everyone is in the system. They have paid their taxes and their contributions, so they have a right to treatment on the NHS. That principle underlies social insurance. People make contributions during their working life and when they need help it is there for them. The rules do not change at the end of the game. The Government cannot say afterwards that someone is not entitled because they have made extra provision for themselves. Either provision is universal or it is not.
The Government say that they do not accept universality. They are moving towards mass means testing. If it was wrong of the Tories to double means testing, why is it right for the Government to extend it further?

Mr. Darling: I have been listening to this nonsense for some time. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government's proposals for the reform of the state second pension, which is a contributory pension, will mean that more people will get an increased amount. We are doubling the amount of money that people on £9,000 or below will get from that contributory benefit. We have a mixed social security system involving means-tested and contributory benefits. I have given an example of a contributory benefit that we are increasing. If the hon. Gentleman's argument was right, contributory benefits could never be changed or improved. When he sits down and thinks about that he must realise that it is nonsense.

Mr. Webb: I am sure that you will not allow me to stray too far in talking about the state second pension, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I should like to address that point. For the next 20 years, contributory pension


expenditure on the state second pension plus the state earnings-related pension will be lower because of the Government's policies. In 2050 or after another total eclipse they will be spending more, but, within 20 years, there will probably be no state second pension because some other Government will have ripped up the unfunded promise. It is the coming years that are relevant to people currently in their 50s and 60s. By 2050, plenty of us here, let alone today's pensioners, will be dead. In the next 20 years, the Government will be spending less on the contributory retirement pension than would have been the case without their reforms.
The Secretary of State mentioned benefits for carers under the state second pension. It will be 50 years before people can get a full state second pension. That is how long the reform will take, yet the Secretary of State justifies cuts to invalids over the coming five to 10 years on a promise 20 or 30 years down the line.

Mr. Darling: Utter rubbish.

Mr. Webb: Does the Secretary of State have the arguments to back that up? Heckling is easy, but has he brought an argument to the House?
Many Labour Members have difficult points to make—no one enjoys voting against their own party—and they deserve to be heard. The Secretary of State can easily dismiss the Tories because of their record, and he can choose to dismiss us. However, he has said that he will listen to his own Back Benchers who, I believe, are deeply dissatisfied with the direction of the Government. Means testing is not the future, it is the past. It is time that the Secretary of State thought again.

Kali Mountford: We have heard some outright nonsense this afternoon, and I cannot resist addressing much of it. The welfare state was created 50 years ago, and times have changed. We are asked why it is right to look at this matter—it is right because the conditions are different. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) says—from a sedentary position—that the system was introduced in 1995. He is trying to mislead the House. We are looking at the whole benefits system, and the Tory reforms merely tinkered and renamed the system. We must look back to the system in 1991 and, prior to that, at sickness benefit, which was the precursor to the proposals that we are debating.
Sickness benefit is an income-replacement benefit. We are debating today—in a changed world—what we mean by that, and how we focus benefits. I support the proposals because I think that they are right. I do not do so because I wish to eke out some meagre resources, but because the proposals make sense. They make sense in terms of the national insurance contributory principle and in terms of how we use that principle now and in the future.
We must look at the link between the contribution and sickness benefit. We talk about national insurance contributions as if they pay only for that benefit, but we pay national insurance contributions for a range of things, and we get a great deal out of it. Some people get more out of it than others, but that is part of the redistribution within the system.
People talk as if we all had an individual fund. One of the problems is that there never was a fund. There is no state pension fund from which we get our pension. We

have no fund for our hospital care. We have no personal fund if we become sick, disabled or unemployed. We pay today for today's recipients. To talk about a fund that does not exist is misleading, and to suggest that no one gets anything from his national insurance contributions is not true. We get a great deal.
On incapacity benefit, we must look at the poorest recipients, who are on income support. The debate has dismissed people on income support as if they were invisible. That is nonsense—they do exist. For the purposes of accounting we cannot simply act as though they do not exist, when clearly they do.
We must look at how we focus resources. Do we focus them on the most disabled, or the worst off? The Government's proposals contain an element of both. The most severely disabled are exempt from the measures and are protected. Consideration has been given to degenerative conditions, so that people need not have concerns about such a condition while they are in work. As their condition worsens and they can work less, credits will be made available. The national insurance system is being upheld yet again.
There is also the linked period between work and the receipt of a benefit—a reasonable period of three years which, depending on when one works and then makes a claim, can run to four to five years in some circumstances. To act as though the Government are introducing an onerous qualifying period is ridiculous. The tight link between the period of work and the receipt of benefit makes more sense.

Mr. Pickles: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Kali Mountford: I cannot resist the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Pickles: I have to tell the hon. Lady that she is not alone in that thought. [Laughter.] I am enjoying her speech, in which she has said that the three-year period is perfect. In Committee, she gave the same speech, but said that a two year period was perfect. Why is two years now wrong and three years better?

Kali Mountford: The hon. Gentleman will recall that I did not use the word "perfect"—I said that it was reasonable. The proposal is all the more reasonable now because we are witnessing—the hon. Gentleman may not be used to this—a Government who have listened and responded. I will try to resist him from now on.
Another problem with the debate has been the constant reference to the all work test. Some colleagues have not been watching what has gone on. I recall that people have been dissatisfied with the all work test, which was anathema to many—including those who have been lobbying for disabled people.
The all work test took no account of people's abilities, and that must be wrong. We have to change the system to one that recognises that people with disabilities also have abilities. In the past, we have had a national insurance contribution system from which benefits have developed. We must look to the future and at how we want society to be. We do not want a society that says that if someone becomes ill or disabled, we will simply write them off. Opposition Members may have heard me say that in Committee, but I say it because I believe it.
It cannot be right to have a system that discourages people from developing their full potential. We must look at this measure in the context of all the other measures that relate to it. People are applauding the new disability tax credit—it is a method by which we can support people who are getting back to work. If anyone thinks that a life on benefits—be it incapacity benefit at its slightly higher rate than jobseeker's allowance—is a joy for anybody, they have not lived on benefits.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Is living on £160 a week any great joy?

Kali Mountford: My hon. Friend is not considering the full implications of the proposals. We must look at the disability income guarantee and at how we get people back to work. People working for only 16 hours a week will now be able to get the disability tax credit.
Does someone on income support deserve less consideration than someone with an occupational pension? My answer is no. It has been said that people have made provision through their occupational pension for such circumstances. Lots of us have done so—not because we think that we will retire at 50, 55 or 60, but because we want to make provision for our old age.
People are pretending about what has gone on in the workplace, where there have been actions that we cannot condone. Employers have been looking at incapacity benefit and others as a top-up to get people out of the system altogether.

Mr. Brazier: If the hon. Lady's allegation is true—I believe it has some truth—surely the answer is to tighten the medical criteria, as we suggested in Committee, rather than to take it out on perfectly legitimate disabled people who have saved or earned a little more than the limits proposed by the Government.

Kali Mountford: The hon. Gentleman obviously was not listening to my arguments about the all work test. We have to consider how we can accommodate people who have medical conditions or disabilities and allow them to move into work and off benefits. The Conservative proposals could even trap them into benefit for much longer than any of us would have envisaged.
I do not want to make allegations about people cheating the system. People with genuine problems would be better off staying in their jobs with support rather than being told that we will find a way of getting them out because it would be more convenient. The fact that they have a genuine condition does not mean that it is right for them to rely solely on benefits. We should try to help people to stay in work if they are employed and to find work if they are not.
No one would try to pretend, however, that that is the solution for everyone. We will never have a perfect economy with 100 per cent. employment, but we should aim for it. People currently claiming incapacity benefit have a right to be part of the new economy and the growth that we expect to arise from other marvellous measures introduced by the Government. I could not resist saying that.
I want to challenge the Opposition on the notion that, because a declining number of people are in receipt of benefit and the expenditure is declining, it would not be right to consider changing the benefit. It is right to change the benefit and the conditions to tighten the link between qualifying for the benefit and the period of work, which consolidates the contributory principle of national insurance and focuses help on those who need it most, providing more help for the most disabled.
The Opposition suggest that we should change benefits only when they are too costly to the state. To take that to its logical conclusion begs the question whether they are suggesting that if expenditure on incapacity benefit rose, they would cut it.

Mr. Pickles: Not really.

Kali Mountford: I heard only a few moments ago the argument that expenditure on incapacity benefit was dropping, so it was not right to cut it. That sounds ridiculous to me.

Mr. Pickles: It was him over there who said it.

Kali Mountford: It was not my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) who said it; it was the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). He said that we were changing the benefit because its cost was rising, but that is simply not the case. We are changing it because to do so strengthens the system and provides proper protection for those who need it. I shall certainly oppose the Lords amendment tonight.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I wish that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) had been at the meeting of the Social Security Committee this morning, where she could have heard an impassioned two-hour defence of the contributory principle by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), whose face during the last few minutes of her speech was a delight to watch.
I hesitate to take part in this debate. I understand that at the Labour party conference—I could not be there, as I was not invited—Bill Morris said:
Reform cannot be a private conversation between the few at the expense of the many.
I hesitate, because this debate is really between the Labour party establishment and those who feel passionately about poverty. I realise that I do not have the record of the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) in standing up for disabled people, but it is important for some of us to take part in the debate to show that we, too, feel passionately about the contributory principle. I agree with the right hon. Member for Birkenhead that it is the bedrock of society.
I sympathise with the Government's position, because they promised at the general election to reduce the costs of social failure, yet they find that the welfare budget is set to rise by more than £38 billion over the next three years. I do not criticise them for that, because all Governments have had to face the same problem. Until we have the courage to return to the contributory principle, we will not get any long-term reduction in the welfare budget. The Government have to find savings.
I also understand the Government's argument on incapacity benefit. To be fair, they are supported by recent research published by Sheffield Hallam university, arguing that three quarters of the 1.7 million people on incapacity benefit, costing £7.8 billion a year, are capable of work. Labour Members have often argued that incapacity benefit and its predecessors have been used to disguise the true level of unemployment. We know that to be true and that there is a scandal of many people who could work using the benefit; but is not the solution not to attack the contributory principle but to have a harder test and ensure that the all work test—or whatever it is renamed—identifies those who are capable of working, which does not happen at present?
Many have spoken of the position of those who have not paid their full national insurance contributions in one of the previous two or three years. I cannot understand the argument about whether it should be two, three, four or five years. It is a principle. Why is it right that people can pay full contributions for 30 years and be denied incapacity benefit if they stop paying them for one, two, three or four years? I cannot for the life of me see the logic. If one believes in the contributory principle, one believes that it confers a right.
There must be many cases in which people are afflicted with a gradually worsening condition, desperately try to stay in work and do not maintain their full contributions. They have contributed to society but the reform discriminates against them. Is that fair or right? There is a fundamental principle at stake.

Mr. Levitt: Those are exactly the circumstances in which the disabled persons tax credit would click in and assist the person involved.

Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman reinforces our point. The mechanisms are simply churning the money around and increasing means testing. I am not suggesting that the Government are increasing poverty. I respect the fact that Labour Members are concerned about poverty and the disabled. Our concern is that the Government are increasing means testing, which cannot be right.
Why, too, are we penalising people with very modest occupational or personal pensions? Why are the Government telling people in occupational pension schemes that may bring in a modest remuneration—be it £50 or £80 a week—that they will be penalised? That cannot make sense.
I hope that as many hon. Members as possible will lay aside for the moment their party loyalties and come to the conclusion that if we truly aspire, as I hope we do, to create a society in which everybody is encouraged to save for their retirement, for sickness and for the various vicissitudes of life, we must vote down the Government's so-called reforms.

Mr. Tom Clarke: On one major point, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I agree—that our debate in May was excellent. I worried a little today at the beginning of the debate whether that quality would continue, until I heard from more of my right hon. and hon. Friends and, to be fair, from the Liberal Democrats. It has continued, but, with great regret, I have to tell the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) and his colleagues that I cannot find it in

my heart to respond to their contributions or to take lectures from them, in the knowledge that I sat year after year watching Conservative Members talk out civil rights Bill after civil rights Bill, including those introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry)—who made an excellent speech today—by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and by Alf Morris, who is now in the other place. I therefore address my remarks to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House, but in particular to my hon. Friends as this important debate continues.
5.30 pm
I have been proud to be supportive of a Government who, in two short years, have done so much to benefit the lives of millions of our disabled fellow citizens, honouring the commitment I gave on behalf of the shadow Cabinet at the party conference before the general election. Of course, I warmly support many of the measures that the Government have introduced to help disabled people, many of which have been mentioned by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I welcome those measures, because it is right that those disabled people who can work should be given the opportunity and the help so to do. Like so many others, I have campaigned for years for those very principles and I am glad to see them being applied.
That said, it is important to establish that the measures we are discussing today concern some hundreds of thousands of disabled people who are incapable of working. That is the issue and the challenge. A job for them is a distant, elusive dream. If the Bill is passed tonight as it stands, all the evidence is that those people will be significantly poorer. I shall explain why.
Under the proposals, disabled people start to lose their weekly incapacity benefit when their annual income is less than £8,000 a year, which is below even the poverty line of half average income. Worse still, the benefit would be withdrawn at a penal rate—I respect the views of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but that it is the only way to describe it—of 50p in the pound. We are talking about people's incomes so it would be, in effect, a tax rate; but no other person in the land—not even the richest millionaire—is asked to pay such a rate.
The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) made an excellent speech, but if we genuinely believe that the present system is exploited, is it right to give a guarantee of continued income to those who we claim are only on the benefit because the Tories were massaging the unemployment figures, but to withhold the payments from new claimants? Given the problems of the all work test presented to me in surgery after surgery—I cannot believe that I am alone in that—it is not easy to qualify for that benefit, and I am not persuaded that the medical profession are so devious as to mislead the House of Commons or those whom they refer for the benefit.
Those who expected more from our Government are likely to feel deeply betrayed when they realise that people will be penalised for putting aside money to help build a nest egg over many years. The disincentive to save is so obvious that Conservative Members have pointed it out. My constituents have also asked me about it. People are bound to ask why they should save when it will mean that the benefits to which they are entitled will be cut. This goes against everything the Government are trying


to encourage and will lead to more people than ever relying on state handouts, which I thought we were trying to avoid. Where is the logic in that?
I have also to ask the Government why they have made no proposals in the Bill for uprating the £85 threshold. By the time April 2001 comes around, the value of that figure is bound to have been substantially reduced by inflation. I did not get the impression from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that he intends to change the level this side of April 2001. In my view, it is essential that a formula for uprating be built into the Bill, similar to the commitment commendably given to uprate the disability income guarantee annually.
The House is at its best when we discuss issues that our constituents are following, including perhaps some even now in their living rooms. That is how they judge us and why I wish to put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—I give him credit for listening—the views of MIND. In its briefing to all hon. Members, MIND says:
People with a mental illness experience fluctuations in their symptoms, often preventing them from sustained employment. Labour market flexibility for this group means the ability to move in and out of work, as their mental health allows, with the minimum of financial penalty. This cannot be achieved if entitlement to National Insurance benefits is restricted.
Mind also described an individual case:
John worked for ten years before developing a mental illness. When recovered he found it difficult to find another job, and three years later became ill again. Under the Government's proposals, John would not be entitled to Incapacity Benefit, despite his years of contributions.
That cannot be fair, but John is not alone. I suffered from ME, but I was fortunate that it was only for 20 months. Many people suffer from it for eight, nine, 10 or more years. Those people may have worked for 10, 20 or more years in transport, in local government, in the civil service or in education, but they would be excluded from incapacity benefit. I cannot find that fair.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that people who suffer from mental illness find it difficult to get a job because of the stigma associated with that problem?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right, and Mind makes that point elsewhere in its briefing. I make these points in the knowledge that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench are listening, and all of them have been helpful to me on constituency cases in the past. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and all my hon. Friends on the Front Bench have responded commendably on individual constituency cases. However, that does not mean that we should not get the Bill absolutely right before we send it back to another place. That is also the view of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux.
Before the election, I was proud to campaign up and down the country, in my shadow role, on the Labour party's manifesto pledges to Britain's 8 million disabled people. Today, I have to say in all candour that I am worried about the gulf that has developed between disability organisations and a Government whom I am happy to support. That development could have been avoided, and I am convinced that it is still not too late to bring both sides together in

partnership, as they have been on almost every other issue to do with disability over the past two years. That would benefit the Government and disabled people.
What are the disability organisations saying today? I take no pleasure in reading the view of the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, which has stated:
Unless the Government goes significantly further in its concessions to this Bill, its overall record towards disabled people will be permanently tarnished.
The Disability Benefits Consortium, which represents more than 250 disability organisations covering our 8 million disabled people, has called the Government's position on these narrow issues "morally repugnant". I find that deeply saddening. It is easy to dismiss newspapers, and especially leading articles in The Guardian, but in the light of all the Government's other splendid achievements on disability it is genuinely worrying when that newspaper can say that
Ministers should not be robbing the poor to help the very poor".
I know that that view is widely shared.
This debate is not about bringing down the Government, nor is it about defeating the Bill. The Government will still get the Bill through in time for its implementation date, which I understand is still April 2001. The worst scenario would be that, as happened with the Bill that became the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999, the measure would go straight into the next Session of Parliament in a matter of weeks, and be given Royal Assent under the Parliament Act 1911. However, we plead with the Government to take our concerns on board.

Mr. Rooker: I hope that I did not misunderstand, but my right hon. Friend mentioned the Parliament Act 1911. That legislation can be used to push a Bill through the House on a fast-track basis only if the Bill takes the same form as it took when it was introduced originally. Therefore, if that mechanism were used, none of the changes that we propose today—nor any of the amendments that have been accepted in Committee, on Report or in another place—would be included.
We must knock on the head the idea that anything can be fast-tracked through and recognise that, in the eventuality to which my right hon. Friend refers, stakeholder pensions would not be in place before the next election. The Parliament Act does not work in the way described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke). The proof of that, as he will know, is that the War Crimes Bill had to go through the House in 1991 without any amendment. The reality, as the Clerks will confirm, is that the Parliament Act cannot be used to push through the amended Bill.

Mr. Clarke: As I said earlier, I have enormous respect for my hon. Friend, but I spent most of the afternoon with the Clerks. The advice that they gave to me is the same as that which I am giving the House. If my hon. Friend will forgive me for the moment, I shall stand by the advice that the Clerks gave me.
However, there is no need for the Bill to spill over into the next Session. The Government are the managers of their own business. They can get the Bill through if, as I


recommend, they involve themselves in dialogue with those Labour party members—our Friends—who are in another place.
This debate is about asking Parliament to accept that it is not beyond the wit of modern, sophisticated, inclusive Government to reach agreement in another place with rebels such as Lords Ashley, Morris and Barnett. Jack Ashley, Alf Morris and Joel Barnett are hardly three closet militants determined to wreck everything that the Government set out to achieve. There is no reason why a reasonable outcome to the debate—which is surely what we all seek—cannot be achieved.
I regret to have to say it, but the truth is that there is no popular support for the Government's position on these particular issues. There is, however, support for the rest of the Bill and for the Government's many achievements on disability. It is not as though we are in a dispute about a crucial manifesto commitment. No pledge was made about incapacity benefit. That benefit is worth £66.75 a week, but for poor people that amount represents a fortune, a fact to which many of my constituents will attest. Our decision is therefore absolutely crucial to them.
Even now, I plead with the Government and the House to give serious thought to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry). I sincerely believe that they offer a real chance of a solution that could so easily unite the Labour party and restore the confidence of our people in the role of Parliament and in the democratic process.

Mr. Andrew George: I shall be brief, given the large number of hon. Members who wish to speak in the little time that remains. I shall confine my remarks to our concern about the Government's response to Lords amendment No. 46, which would continue severe disablement allowance.
The existence of a safety net for the most vulnerable is a matter of fundamental principle for Liberal Democrat Members. We sought and failed to find justification for the proposals in the Bill in the Labour party's pledge card or in its election manifesto. In the Government's much-trumpeted and proper commitment to challenge the causes of social exclusion we were unable to find any justification for the abolition of severe disablement allowance.
The proposal does not modernise the benefit system. It removes an essential safety net for a small but significant number of people. I am sure that Ministers are aware that, although income support will cover many people who will be unable to take up severe disablement allowance when it is abolished, many people will fall through the net. Women and carers will be especially hard hit, as they often are unable to build up the level of contributions necessary to secure incapacity benefit.
If the Government are concerned about low-income groups, benefits should be aimed at those groups. We need to recognise that women, carers and people in part-time work will find themselves in difficulty as a result of the proposals. People who become disabled and who previously worked as lollipop men or women, or who work at the supermarket checkout or as part-time caretakers at the local school, are often unable to achieve sufficient insurance contributions to secure incapacity benefit. At least in those cases the safety net of severe disablement allowance still applies.
The Government, thankfully, take the view that young people under 20 who are entitled to SDA now and in the future will have that support passported into incapacity benefit come their 20th birthday. Young carers looking after elderly or disabled relatives or anyone else who receives invalid care allowance will not be treated in the same way as those who have paid national insurance contributions and are also receiving the allowance. Young people who were previously entitled to SDA when they were under 20 are entitled to receive incapacity benefit when they get older but young carers are not. That anomaly must be ironed out.
Such examples have been brought to the Government's attention throughout the passage of the Bill, but they have failed to respond. Either the Government do not believe that such cases exist, or they do not care. We believe that there should be a safety net, but there are still gaps in it. The Government must sort out which side of the line they are on. This is a fundamental principle. Many severely disabled people—who have to be 80 per cent. disabled—will fall through the net and be considerably worse off.
We are told that adults receiving SDA will not be affected. Well, not yet—the Government will deal with them individually. Many people on SDA are worried by the Bill's message. Given the experience of the all work test and the other hurdles that they will no doubt have to overcome, they fear that their SDA will be taken away from them. Ministers may well shake their heads and say that that is not the intention. However, disabled people believe that the Government want to do away with SDA as quickly as possible, and that individual cases will be dealt with later.
It seems prophetic. First the Government came for the asylum seekers; then the Home Secretary sought to make scapegoats of the travellers, and now we fear that the Government will go for disabled people. We look forward to hearing the voice of conscience in this debate. Ministers may consider that their Back Benchers are an electoral liability, but they will be an electoral asset in future. On this issue, the Government need to be saved from themselves.

Mr. Sam Galbraith: With regard to the closing remarks of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George), every time I hear a politician talk about conscience, I run for my sick bag. We are all trying to act for the best, and no one has a monopoly on conscience.
This is a highly emotional subject and hon. Members on both sides of the House have made detailed contributions. The arguments seem to be a cross between metaphysics and statistics and, as I know little about either subject, I shall stick to the principles involved.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) said that if the benefit were related to a pension it would somehow stop people having a pension and make them claim benefit. Nothing could be further from the truth. I agree that facts are not available to prove the case, so we must stick to opinions.
I do not usually use myself as an example, but I should like to tell the House something from my own experience. I do so because the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) asked what a 54-year-old man with a disability would do if he had to give up his job. There is no need to hypothesise—I am that man. I have lived with


a disability for 10 years since I had a lung transplant for respiratory problems. The idea that my pension may be taken into account when considering this benefit and that I would reduce my pension contribution is utter nonsense. On the contrary, I would increase my contributions to accommodate my disability. I say that from my experience, as a person who fulfils the hypothetical case, and I am only one. The hon. Gentleman was trying to make a principle fit a hypothetical case, but I am a real case.

Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman speaks from experience, which I respect. Might I suggest, however, that he sacks his personal financial adviser? He should be putting his money into a vehicle that is not means tested by the Government—any form of saving other than a pension. As people realise that that is how the system works, it will create a distortion. Is that desirable?

Mr. Galbraith: As my friends know, I know absolutely nothing about money or finance. The Prime Minister said that he never considered me for a Treasury job, and that was probably a good idea.
So the point about my pension being taken into account when considering such a benefit must be nonsense. The idea that the contributory principle is inviolate and must never be touched is no longer true, although it may have been true in the early days of the welfare state.

Dr. Lynne Jones: I respect what my hon. Friend has told us from his experience and his proposals to deal with it. If he does not accept that means testing changes behaviour, I suggest that he reads the report of the social justice commission. It explains that means testing is not the way to ensure that people in need get the benefit they need.

Mr. Galbraith: That is another issue. We are discussing whether consideration should be given to other factors when making decisions on benefit. Let me knock on the head once and for all the idea that pensions should not be taken into consideration, and that if they are, people will reduce their contributions. Nothing could be further from the truth, so let me lay that ghost once and for all.
I have another area of expertise to bring to the debate. It has been said that the all work test, which involves medical criteria, should be used as a better policing gateway, and I agree with that. But the tests are not rocket science; they are not even purely objective. I have done many such tests and they are quite subjective. We must consider all the possible mechanisms, without regarding the doctors' criteria as the only or final ones.
Finally, I wish to deal with the issue of years without work. My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston gave some examples, but I can come at them from the opposite direction. Are people who worked for 10 years but not for the past 20 entitled to the benefit? According to my hon. Friend they are, according to me surely they are not. We have to make a judgment. Those are difficult calls to make and I agree that we do not always get them right.
It is not an exact science, but we have to make a judgment and set the dividing lines. We are confronted by dividing lines throughout our lives, and it is difficult for those who fall on the wrong side of them. It seems unfair because they are close to those who fall on the other side of the line. However, we have to make such judgments. I ask all hon. Members to consider that when they make their decisions tonight, and to not get lost in a fog of principle that does not apply.
I am grateful to the Government for their concessions on three years and the significant increase from £50 to £85, which is more than I expected. Therefore, I am happy to support the Government in the Lobby tonight.

6 pm

Miss Julie Kirkbride: I shall speak briefly, because I suspect that Ministers are more likely to listen to the arguments—with which I agree—of Labour Members who oppose the Government's proposal than to those of Conservative Members.
Many of us find it astonishing that the Government's welfare reform proposals will cut the benefits of disabled people and widows. People who voted in a Labour Government at the last election did not suspect that those categories would be the target of the Government's welfare reform proposals. The Government spend more on social security than on health and education combined, but the increase in spending does not benefit those whom many people would consider to be the most deserving—the disabled and widows.
My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) set out our reasons for opposing the Government's so-called reform of incapacity benefit, in contrast to a few months ago when, in a similar debate, we supported the Government's measures on lone parent benefit. My hon. Friend pointed out that, when we introduced incapacity benefit in 1995, we considered means testing but rejected it because we believed it to be unfair. We continue to believe that.
We would all hate to retire before retirement age—some years hence for some of us, not so far away for others—and have to rely on incapacity benefit. Our future is part of the great lottery of life, but none of us wants that to happen. The insurance principle of making a contribution and benefiting from it is important and should be maintained in incapacity benefit.
With due deference to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), the Government's proposals will damage the principle of saving for a pension because those who make provision for themselves will be less eligible for state benefits. When I bang on doors in Bromsgrove, I am confronted by people who feel resentful because they have saved and receive little or nothing, while their neighbours, who did not make the same provision for themselves, receive all the state benefits. They represent a further tranche of seething resentment, which is felt by many whom the Government do not benefit. While I sympathise with the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden for what happened to him, Members of Parliament retire on considerably more than the £8,000 a year for which the Government are introducing a means test. That makes a great difference to our financial status in later life. It is different for those who retire on very little.
The right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) quoted an article in The Guardian, which stated that the Government's welfare cuts made the poor pay for the very poor. That is true of the proposals that we are considering tonight. People who are forced, through disability, to retire early on a pension with many years of life—albeit disabled life—ahead will have their right to incapacity benefit truncated by the means test. That is unfair because they live on modest incomes, if the £8,000 a year trigger for the means test is correct. Even if the figure is a few thousand pounds out, it is a low income on which to retire for a long time.
Although we approve of the Government's promise not to raise the top rate of income tax, if I were a Labour Member, I would find it galling that relatively poor people are being made to pay for very poor people's benefits while the richer members of the community are not being asked to increase their contribution. That happens because the Government are increasing the social security bill. The reforms are unnecessary, as is increasing the social security budget. If I were a Labour Member, I would consider disgraceful the Government's method of introducing benefit cuts for some people.

Mr. Nigel Evans: The Labour party fought the last election on the slogan, "Things can only get better". Does my hon. Friend agree that many disabled people, whose benefits will be removed, will be aghast at what is happening this evening? At the next election, disabled people, who have been so badly let down, will give Labour Members short shrift. Things can only get better unless one happens to be disabled.

Miss Kirkbride: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I shall underline it by telling the House about a telephone call that I received recently from a lady in Bromsgrove who worked for 30 years and is now on incapacity benefit. I was glad to be able to reassure her that the Government's iniquitous proposals will not affect her because they do not apply to existing claimants. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tell the truth."] Conservative Members tell the truth, unlike the Government.
Many other ladies and gentlemen will retire in the same condition as my constituent, who is obliged to sell her house because she can no longer afford to live there on her reduced income after being forced to retire on incapacity benefit. Others in her condition will find the Government's policies deeply offensive.
I am equally offended by Government proposals to cut entitlement to incapacity benefit for those who have contributed for only three years as opposed to a lifetime. I think of my constituents who suffer from multiple sclerosis and who are desperate to continue working but do not receive beta interferon despite promises that a new Labour Government would fund the drug and enable sufferers to work for longer. They will be offended by the Government's proposals. Their entitlement will be much reduced because the qualifying period will be only three years. [Interruption.] Labour Members can protest as much as they like, but that will happen.

Audrey Wise: I want to speak mainly about severe disablement allowance. I agree with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry)

and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) about incapacity benefit. They made a good case.
Severe disablement allowance is under attack. That is a paradox, because the allowance was introduced under a different name by the last Labour Government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that it was poorly targeted, but Barbara Castle described the target when she introduced the allowance. She said that the benefit
will provide new, non-means-tested help for those of working age who are deprived of the opportunity to earn their living and who have no rights under existing contributory … schemes.
That was the target and it has been met. She described it as a brand new benefit and added:
This is quite an historic moment. We have made an important breakthrough here.
She also referred to the fact that it would
bring a new non-means-tested security to nearly 250,000 people whose needs we have neglected for far too long".—[Official Report, 21 November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 1555.]
Disabled people needed that benefit—it is now the severe disablement allowance—when it was introduced, and they still need it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that many of them are on income support despite receiving SDA. That is an argument for increasing SDA, not abolishing it. We have not even asked for an increase. Our aims have been so modest that we simply say, "Let's preserve it." However, as long as a benefit exists, there is the potential for increasing it, and as my right hon. Friend clearly recognises that the allowance is inadequate, he should go down that road—keep it and increase it. Barbara Castle was right—it was an historic moment. I am glad I was present in the House at the time. I am not glad to have to defend the allowance against this Labour Government now. In 1974, I would have been astonished had such a development been forecast.
Of course, I am glad that the Government are passporting those aged under 20, and sometimes under 25, on to incapacity benefit, which is worth more. We are all glad about that. However, that is no excuse for taking SDA away from the rest. My hon. Friends and I have tabled an amendment that would somewhat mitigate that action by increasing the categories of exemption. However, there is no realistic prospect of that amendment being called to a vote, and I have to admit that by far the simplest and best action would be to keep SDA for those over 20. That is exactly what Lords amendment No. 46 would achieve.
No case for abolition has been made. There has been much discussion about whether the Government's proposals will pay for improvements for others. I do not understand what the motivation is, and I am not imputing bad motives. However, I know that, if one increases benefits for some disabled people and decreases benefits for others, conclusions will be drawn. It is, in fact, a redistribution—whether it is intended to be so or not.
I believe very strongly that we who are able bodied and healthy should pay the whole cost of funding improvements for disabled people. I do not believe that there is any disabled person who is in too good a position in our country now, and that argument still applies even if savings are made and redistribution is carried out in the long term.
I do not want to put the cuts into an order of ranking. In some ways, however, the abolition of SDA is even worse than some of the other proposals. Certainly, the minority of people who are fortunate enough to be above the breadline should not have their benefits means tested. Those who at present qualify for the non-contributory benefit, SDA, and who have 80 per cent. long-term disablement should not be told that, if they are hard up, they might receive means-tested income support. That point was made in May when the Bill was before the House. Of course, married women with working husbands do not qualify for income support anyway, so their only independent income will be removed by the Bill. It might not be a good enough income, but it is their only independent income. One of the reasons for introducing the allowance was to give disabled people the dignity of an independent income by right.
6.15 pm
We are twitted that we shall be in the same Lobby as the Tories. As a Conservative Member helpfully pointed out, that applied on 10 December 1997 when the Government, the Leader of the Opposition and some Labour Members went into the same Lobby in the vote on lone parents. Some of us were in the other Lobby. Tonight, okay, our Lobby will be made impure by the presence of some Opposition Members. However, I remind hon. Friends, and especially the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), that we have some experience of that. He will remember that vividly, because it was quite an experience. My hon. Friend and I stood out alone—we did not receive the comfort of our hon. Friends—in a Finance Bill Committee against the massed weight of those on the Government Front Bench. Remember, it was a very tight House and threats to bring down the Government perhaps carried more weight. However, we did not bring down the Government, but argued that we were improving the Chancellor's Budget—and the population agreed with us. Our proposal become mainstream, because no one could argue against increasing tax thresholds at least in line with inflation.
I commend to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the words "at least". As my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr will tell him, if he does not already know, that was the phrase that we used to improve the position of taxpayers in 1977 and for many more years to come. After the issue received the exposure that we gave it, no Chancellor dared do other than raise the tax thresholds. [Interruption.]

Mr. Rooker: Conservative Members may joke, but my hon. Friend and I have no regrets and do not need to apologise for any action that we took in Committee Room 9 on 14 June 1977. We intended to defeat the Government not just as a token and with a bleeding heart on our sleeve, but because the Government had flatly refused to move or listen at any time during our discussions with them. That does not apply to this Bill.

Audrey Wise: My hon. Friend has vindicated what some Labour Members did on 20 May this year. Would the Government have made any movement—even a

minuscule one—had there not been 67 Labour Members in the Lobby? My hon. Friend is encouraging people to have the courage of their convictions, so that we can achieve more concessions. There is still time for more movement. As we have managed to obtain a slight advance for disabled people by what we have done so far, why not continue? Why do we not encourage the Government to do as my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston suggested and reach an accommodation with such well-known rebels as Jack Ashley, Alf Morris and Joel Barnett. Joel Barnett, for goodness sake, was one of the heavy mob against Jeff—I mean my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr—and me. The position is so clear that those noble Friends have taken the same view, and we have formed a very broad alliance that has been informed entirely by our concern for people with disabilities.
I encourage my right hon. and hon. Friends to join us in the Lobby and vote against the motion to disagree, because on this occasion the Lords amendment protects the interests of disabled people who are under attack. My hon. Friends should take courage from the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr and me. My hon. Friend says that he has no regrets; I certainly have none. We can do it. We can improve the Government's policies and we can live perfectly happily with a clear conscience ever after.

Mr. Swinney: I find it difficult to follow that speech, which was as stimulating as every other contribution that the hon. Member for Preston (Audrey Wise) makes to debates in which the House wrestles with difficult issues on welfare reform.
Many of the arguments that I intended to make were eloquently made by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke). I shall focus on the arguments made by the hon. Member for Preston in relation to the Government's concessions and whether those concessions really have been—in the words of the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith)—generous and substantial.
The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) intervened on the Secretary of State to ask for firmer commitments in relation to the uprating of the £85 threshold for incapacity benefit, and for a commitment that, as a minimum, the threshold would be uprated to the year 2001 when the provisions come into effect, but ideally for a longer period. Understandably, the Secretary of State said that he was not in a position to commit other Governments to protecting that threshold. However, he could certainly have said that he could amend the Bill to provide for some indexation.
Countless measures that pass through the House provide for the indexation of specific figures on the face of a Bill. It is not a new measure that has been invented for the purposes of the debate, to cause discomfort to the Government, but an integral part of the way in which we legislate. As a minimum, the Secretary of State should have been able to give the right hon. Member for Swansea, West a more substantial answer, and to give a commitment that the Government would index that figure at least to 2001, and perhaps thereafter. That commitment was not there, so I suggest that the points made by the Government on what has been trumpeted as a major concession do not amount to much. The Government


could have gone further, and they could have advanced further toward the position that was arrived at in the other place.
The second concession on which I want to focus relates to the extension from two to three years that is implicit in the proposal announced by the Secretary of State the other day. In an intervention, I asked the Secretary of State why he had decided to move from two to three years, not from two to four years; why the period of two years was originally chosen; and why the period could not be extended from two to seven years, as envisaged in amendment (a), tabled by the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry). The Secretary of State said that one just has to arrive at a position, and that no particular science is involved.
The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden said that there must be dividing lines. Of course there must, but if the Government were genuinely trying to bridge some of the gaps which have developed between them and the disability campaign organisations in this debate, they would have moved a great deal further to close the gap between the three years in their proposals and the seven years envisaged in the proposals from the House of Lords.
The hon. Member for Kingswood has tabled reasonable amendments to the Government's proposals—amendments on which the Government could have engaged in a better and more considered debate. As we have heard, the Government have arrived at a position that is not rooted in the history of this Labour Government—not rooted in the way in which the Government found and obtained their mandate from the people of the United Kingdom. It is a position that has been invented during the development of the Bill, and the development of a Government strategy that does not have its roots in the mandate that they sought from the United Kingdom electorate.
I said that I wanted to make a short speech on the substance of the concessions that the Government have made. The Government's proposals do not go nearly far enough to address the genuine concerns that exist in our community, so they should be rejected.

Mr. Levitt: Like many hon. Members, I believe that the debate has been of high quality. However, that has not been true of all the debate that has taken place outside the Chamber in the past few months. I am afraid that, in many cases, it has produced more heat than light.
For example, people in the country have been led to believe that, if they are now claiming benefits, there is a risk that they will lose them under the proposals in the Bill. That is not the case, although those fears have been cynically manipulated by Conservative Members who do not even have the decency to stay for the last few minutes of the debate.

Kali Mountford: More of them have just arrived.

Mr. Levitt: Indeed; there are as many Members on the Conservative Benches now as there have been at any time in the debate.
Outside this Chamber it has been said that the Bill is a "cuts" Bill—which it is not. Thankfully, no one has said that in tonight's debate, because, as has been said from time to time today, there may be changes to different budgets but the overall effect of the package, of which the

incapacity element is only part, is to increase spending on people with disabilities in the years to come, to increase spending on welfare reform and, generally, to improve the lot of the worst-off, especially those with disabilities.
I believe that welfare reform, when looked at in its simplest form, should involve a debate about how we use the available resources to bring most help to the people who most need it. Of course we can talk about generating more help, and about having a bigger pot from which to draw—we shall do so, and we are doing so—but we have been led into a debate about the philosophy underlying the national insurance contribution system.
That debate has not been especially helpful. It has drawn attention to a great many difficulties, inconsistencies and anomalies in the national insurance contribution system. I was surprised but pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Audrey Wise) alluded to some of the inconsistencies in that system.
I take one good example. As a result of the contributory system, some women whose income is too low have not qualified for maternity benefits. We put that right in the Bill and, by doing so, we flew in the face of the contributory system. We set that system to one side, by giving maternity benefits to women who would not previously have qualified. There has been no outrage about that.

Angela Eagle: The Conservatives voted against it.

Mr. Levitt: Indeed they did. Is that a sell-out of the national insurance contribution system?
In the past few months, the debate has become bogged down in such minutiae instead of encompassing all the Bill, which covers a range of Government policies.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman with increasing astonishment. Is he entirely unaware of the work of his right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)? Is he entirely unaware of the importance of trying to shift social security towards a system of contributions and away from a system of means testing?

Mr. Levitt: The contributory system accounts for only about 40 per cent. of the benefit system, and I am aware that there are varying views about how it should develop.
I want to say a quick word about some of the debate on incapacity benefit that has been taking place outside the House, because I believe that some of the issues are of interest only in the House, in the other place or to the higher echelons of some groups outside. Pressure groups exist to get the best that they can for their members. That is the job of the disability movement. That is the job of pressure groups. It is absolutely right that they should push the Government for more and more concessions in their interests, and they have won such concessions. But our job as a Government is different from that of pressure groups. Our job is to balance the needs of different groups and different individuals with the resources that are available to us, and to ensure that we target those resources, as we have done in the past week with the disabled person's tax credit, where they will give the most help—where they will be the most efficient in relieving poverty and improving welfare.
On the occupational pension link with incapacity benefit and the clawback, incapacity benefit is, undeniably, not the principal disability benefit that people claim. From time to time, it has been said outside this place that disability benefits are under attack. Disability living allowance is the main disability benefit. It is not changing at all, except that there will be some improvements for people on DLA in relation to the rest of the system. We must therefore ask what is the purpose of incapacity benefit. It is to compensate, on a more or less flat rate, for the loss of income that is caused by having to leave the work force early owing to incapacity.
6.30 pm
Some people—increasing numbers over the years—have catered for such an eventuality by taking matters into their own hands and investing in occupational pensions. Some of them—a tiny number, I admit—receive occupational pension incomes that are higher than the salary of Back-Bench Members of Parliament. I do not begrudge them that. [HON. MEMBERS: "How many?"] It is a tiny number.
When we are guaranteeing to our pensioners a minimum income of £75 a week, to a disabled person in work a minimum income of £132 a week, to a person on the national minimum wage who works a 40-hour week a wage of £144 a week, and to a working family—by definition, a minimum of two people—an income of £200 a week, through the working families tax credit, why on earth should we top up with replacement benefits the incomes of single people who have no dependants and who receive incomes that are already in excess of £150 a week and, often, considerably more than that?
The minimum guaranteed income for a person with an occupational pension of £85 a week who receives £66.75 a week incapacity benefit is £151.75. That assumes that the person is on short-term incapacity benefit—it is bigger if he is on the long-term benefit—has no dependants and does not receive the age allowance. Let us consider how that compares to all other guaranteed incomes. It is the most generous of all.
I am not particularly worried about how many people have incomes of £20,000, £30,000 or more from occupational pensions and are claiming incapacity benefit, because it is not our job as a Labour Government to look after them when we are not guaranteeing the same income to people in the other groups that I have mentioned.

Mr. Berry: Would my hon. Friend remove all benefits from people on those incomes?

Mr. Levitt: We are talking about an income-replacement benefit. We have also mentioned the disability living allowance, which is not related to income. If such people qualified for DLA, they would get it.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: My hon. Friend and I disagree about numbers. I have in my hand a letter from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, which has been circulated to all hon. Members, which reminds us that only 2.3 per cent. of incapacity benefit

recipients have an occupational pension of more than £200 a week. A tiny number of people receive these allegedly super-generous occupational pensions.

Mr. Levitt: That is the figure for now, not for the future. Also, we are guaranteeing to people with an occupational pension of £85 a week a top-up to a basic income of more than £150. We are talking not only about people who have an income of more than £200 or £300 a week, but about those who receive more than £150-odd a week, which is higher than the income which we guarantee to any other group in the population.
I remind the House that the proposed taper for occupational pensions in the Government's amendment is the second most generous in the entire benefits system. Housing benefit tapers at 65 per cent., working families tax credit and disabled persons tax credit at 55 per cent., and jobseeker's allowance, and even the old-age pension, at 100 per cent.—one loses pound for pound on those. Only council tax benefit, which tapers at 20 per cent, is more generous.
Although I shall not ask now, because I am running short of time, I should like to know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) thinks that the 23 per cent. taper that he is advocating for incapacity benefit should be applied to all benefits. If so, has that proposal been costed, and would it be a justified use of resources in helping people who need such help most?
At a meeting on Monday night, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) asked what else would be lost if the Bill were to fall on the incapacity benefit issue. The answer is very simple: we would lose the highest rate of disability benefit ever paid to young people who have severe disabilities; DLA for three and four-year-old children; the stakeholder pension, with its protection for those on low pay and with broken contribution records; bereavement benefits for widows; maternity benefits for women on low pay; and the single gateway.
All those proposals are in the Bill, and if we play ping-pong with the Lords over the next few days on tiny issues surrounding the so-called principle of national insurance contributions and whether one supports the contributory system or thinks that there are alternatives—that is what we are talking about—we shall do a disservice to all those who would benefit.
The Government will win this vote and the issue will return to the Lords. I hope that that will be the end of the matter for now; however, there must be a constructive debate—in our party especially—about the role of the contributory system in benefits provision.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Member must address the Chair.

Mr. Levitt: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
My hon. Friends must accept that there are people such as me who are cynical about the value of the contributory system. Our views need to be heard as well.
I make a special plea to Lord Ashley—a man whom I have admired throughout my political life and who has generated in me a concern for deafness that has led to our sitting together as trustees of a major organisation that works in the interests of deaf people in this country.


Because of his position, and the respect for him in another place and in this one, he has the power to inflict considerable damage—perhaps even fatal damage—on the Bill.
If Lord Ashley did that, there would be a cost. There would be a cost to disabled people, who will genuinely benefit from the Bill; a cost to the political credibility of the Government whom both he and I support; and a cost to the entire legislative programme. If this Bill has to be reintroduced in its original form, and its passage in the next Session takes up the time that it occupied in this one, it will certainly impact on other issues on which the Government will be wanting to legislate.
It would be profoundly wrong to take this issue further and to play ping-pong with the other place. That will not achieve anything. We have aired the issues; there have been compromises and some progress on ensuring realistic levels relating to the contribution period and for occupational pension rules. I commend the Government's position to the House, and I hope that this is the last debate on the Bill in this Session.

Mr. Pickles: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt), who served on the Committee that considered the Bill. I have great respect for his views, but to speak of the Parliament Act 1911 and ping-pong with the Lords, when we should be talking about disabled persons, is amazing. Frankly, I am not very impressed by the macho treatment of the other place. If the Government are prepared to listen, we shall be a long way away from such action. If they listen, ping-pong will not be necessary.
The hon. Member for High Peak is right that this has been a good debate of a high standard. I am thinking not least of the marvellous teaching of the hon. Member for Preston (Audrey Wise) that the best way in which an ambitious Back Bencher can become a Minister is to rebel, and of the Minister's dawning realisation that, after facing Lord Barnett after the 1977 rebellion, it is probably pay-back time.
One Labour Member said that he knew nothing about pensions or finance. That strikes me as a prerequisite for voting for the measure today. I am not impressed with the negotiations that seem to be taking place on the Floor of the House with regard to the other place, nor with the teachings about the Parliament Act, particularly as Ministers seem to be wrong.
We heard good speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), who spoke of the experience of constituents. The hon. Members for St. Ives (Mr. George) and for Preston dealt with severe disablement allowance.
At the last Social Security questions, the Secretary of State produced a rather innocuous letter from me, which had been leaked to him. It seems that leaking occurs both ways, as I have received a copy of his briefing to Back Benchers. In response to the question why the Government are reforming severe disablement allowance, the answer given is that SDA is not targeted at the most severely disabled, but is a non-contributory version of incapacity benefit that is paid at a lower level. The briefing goes on to state that SDA is ineffective, and for 70 per cent. of recipients must be topped up with income support.
Severe disablement allowance is supposed to be non-contributory. It was designed specifically to meet the needs of housewives who, through no fault of their own, were unable to pay national insurance contributions. It was a unique benefit to be paid solely on the grounds of disability.

Audrey Wise: No.

Mr. Pickles: The hon. Lady disagrees, but I believe that I am right. SDA was to be paid in cases of at least 80 per cent. disability. The Government have made a concession to allow young people with no chance of employment and no prospect of paying national insurance contributions to receive it.

Audrey Wise: I intervene in the interests of accuracy. The hon. Gentleman is wrong when he suggests that the primary target of SDA was housewives. Initially, it was made more difficult for housewives than for men and single women to receive SDA. It affected everyone. After a bit of push, the benefit was extended to housewives on an equal basis. Recipients would qualify without a means test.

Mr. Pickles: I stand corrected, but I was paraphrasing Lord Ashley, who made the point in another place.
The Government tell us that to pay for the concession to young people, SDA must be abolished. They propose to take away from one disabled group to give to another disabled group. They will remove one inequality by creating another.
In another place, the Minister, Lady Hollis, said:
I believe that that is the right focusing of the benefit—not continuing to give it to people who have chosen not to build up a contributory record, as in the case of some married women, or who would not need access to means-tested benefits because they have sufficient finances coming into the household."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 October 1999; Vol. 605, c. 461.]
The principal losers will be women. There are 2.4 million women who earn less than the national insurance threshold and cannot build up contributions. Lord Morris said in another place that the proposal represented not so much the reform of the benefit system as an attempt to put the clock back. He gave a number of moving examples to show how people would be affected.
I raised the matter with the Secretary of State. A disabled person who has £8,000-worth of capital or £3,000-worth of savings or a spouse who is earning will receive nothing, yet the purpose of the measure was to give disabled people some financial independence. When the point was put to the Secretary of State, all that he could do was bluster.
The Government's argument is that everyone above income support level is well off and should not receive SDA. The suggestion is that people with savings of more than £3,000 or capital of £8,000 or a spouse in employment should not receive it. If a wife who has taken time off to look after children becomes disabled during that period, she will receive nothing under the Government's proposals.
The Government say that if people do not make contributions, they are not entitled to receive benefit, yet the Government also say that if people make


contributions, they are not entitled to benefit. The Government are predetermining according to their whim the level of benefit that people should receive.
The Secretary of State told us this afternoon that he intended to ensure that the Tories would be prevented from cutting social security benefit. There was a time not long ago, before the general election, when it was the proud boast of the Labour party that the Tories would cut benefits. In a few moments the House will be asked to vote on a measure that the Tory party considered too harsh. If that is new Labour, good luck to it.

Mr. Rooker: It is traditional to say that we have had an interesting debate. We have, but it has not been entirely accurate.
For obvious reasons, the detailed history of the Bill is much better known to many of my hon. Friends than it is to me. However, as I made clear earlier, this is not the Bill that was originally introduced or which left the House after Third Reading, and the Government are entitled to take some credit for that. There has hardly been a period when the Government have not been listening. Colleagues on both sides of the House could claim that we have not listened enough to meet all their demands, but no one will be able to vote against the Government tonight and claim that we have not listened. That would simply not be true.
I shall repeat another point, now that the hare is running. It ran for me first on Monday evening, secondly on the letters page of The Guardian today, and thirdly with one of my hon. Friends today when the issue of the retirement pension was raised. I repeat without apology that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it unambiguously clear at Question Time today that the retirement pension is not in anyone's sights. It is not an intellectually honest argument to say that the changes in incapacity benefit are the thin end of the wedge, and that the retirement pension will be next in line.
There is no possibility of that happening under a Labour Government, irrespective of who the Prime Minister is. It is not part of our agenda, and we have made that clear. To set that hare running causes untold worry and unnecessary concern to those outside the House who watch or listen to our proceedings. To make claims that everyone knows are not true adds nothing to the argument about welfare reform. That point must be made again on the record.
There has been constant reference to cuts in benefit. It must be repeated that no cuts in benefit are planned. When hon. Members face the electorate, whatever arguments they may have in respect of future changes, the people whom they meet will be on the same benefit or will receive more under the Bill. That is the reality. As my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) said when he read out the list of measures in the Bill, there will be extra money for many people. That is at risk if the Bill falls. It is not true to say that the Bill is only about changes to incapacity benefit and that that is where the concentration is.
I must tell my right hon. and hon. Friends that nobody needs to apologise for raising these important issues. No one can gainsay the fact that there was concern in the original debates; we are not saying that there was not. That is proved by the fact that my right hon. Friend the

Secretary of State made it clear at the time—I was not in this Department, but I was in the House—that he would listen, take the matter away and rethink some points in the Bill. That is what happened during the parliamentary recess, and the same is true of the debates in the other place.
Therefore, it is wholly reasonable for us to say that we have made changes. Some of my hon. Friends might say that they are not enough and that there is no rigid formula for how we arrived at the figure of £85. That is true; there is no formula because it was not possible to use one. There was an original figure of £50, which is not in the Bill, and I understand that there were demands for it to be £105. We looked at the good trade union principle of splitting the difference, but £75 was not enough because it did not protect enough people. That is why we went to £85; it is as simple as that. There is no magic formula. We looked at all the issues and decided that with £85 being as near as dammit to the average occupational pension received by someone on incapacity benefit, more people would gain than under the median figure of £75. In order to reinforce that, we have put the figure in the Bill.
I will not be able to respond to all the detailed points raised in the debate, but I ought to try to respond to some of them, if only for the sake of accuracy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), in an interesting and powerful speech, talked about people with intermittent illness. If what he said was true, we would have cause for concern, but it is not. I want to put this on the record. Since last October—I remind my hon. Friends that there was a Labour Government then—when we extended the linking rules for incapacity benefit from eight to 52 weeks, disabled people have been assured that they can try for work for periods of up to one year with a guarantee of being able to return to the same level of benefit should they fall ill again. The same rules also mean that they will be able to meet the new contribution test. For people who receive the new disabled persons tax credit, the linking period is extended to two years. Rather than making it harder for people to try for work, we are making it easier.
For those not covered by the linking rules, we are making general provision for people to requalify without paying further national insurance contributions if they were on incapacity benefit in the last tax year. Nobody has to be continuously in work to qualify for IB. Someone on the minimum wage would pay the necessary contributions in 12 weeks, and on average earnings, four weeks would be enough. Someone in the circumstances described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston would not be covered by the changes in the Bill. Such a person would still be protected.
During the first 20 minutes of this debate there was only one Conservative Member on the Back Benches and I see that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) has not returned to his seat. However, he did raise a point that has been laboured by many others. He talked about people who have made contributions for 30 years missing one year and being unable to claim. So many myths have built up over the years about the national insurance system that we have all come to believe them. We believe that it is a piggy bank, that there is a personal fund and that if stamps are paid over a number of years, there is entitlement to benefit. That has never been the case. Contributions or credits have been required in both the last two tax years for people to be able to qualify,


no matter how many years they have paid. If they do not have those contributions or credits from the last two tax years, they fail to qualify for incapacity benefit. The Bill does not change that. The Bill puts a time limit on the use of credits when someone is unemployed because they have pulled out of the job market completely and claimed their occupational pension.
There was a letter in one of the newspapers today asking what would be the incentive for people in such a position to go on retraining programmes or to get back into work. It looks for all the world as if we are talking about people who are not in receipt of an occupational pension. We are talking about people who have withdrawn from the labour market under the retirement age for their own reasons. The myth that that includes all disabled people is nonsense. The hare gets out and starts to run simply because of a misunderstanding about the national insurance rules. There is nothing new about this.
The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) said that some people believe that SDA will be taken away through the all work test. The existing SDA recipient will be receiving the allowance on the basis of being 80 per cent. disabled. Those who are 80 per cent. disabled are exempt from the all work test. These myths are suggested in letters from pressure groups with a legitimate axe to grind because they are in the business of getting more for a particular client group. Hon. Members come to the House and repeat those myths to strengthen their argument, without checking whether they are true. That devalues their contribution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Audrey Wise) made a contribution, but I do not have time to go into it now, except to say that, in 1977, the Government had not listened and were not intending to listen. There were no procedures for listening and my hon. Friend knows that because we both met my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton- under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and Lord Barnett at the Treasury. The junior Whip on that Finance Bill is now the Chief Whip and she is well aware of the fact that the Government were not moving. This Government have moved.
It is true that no one political party owns the Lobbies in this place. There is not a Lobby for the Labour party and a Lobby for the Tory party. I must tell my right hon. and hon. Friends however, that they cannot go into the Lobby to vote against the Government saying that the Government have not listened. That is not true. The Government have moved. If my right hon. and hon. Friends do not want to support the Government, I hope that they will think twice before voting against. That would send the wrong signals to the other place and it is important to take that into account given the time limits under which we are operating. If a sufficient number of hon. Members vote against the Government, the other place might start playing ping-pong. There is no doubt that the Bill is under threat. That is not an idle point.
If the Bill is lost, all the good points, which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak, will be lost. I stand by what I said about the Parliament Act. Confusing the Parliament Act with carry-over motions might be a common occurrence, but I will not do it because I know the rules we used for the War Crimes Bill.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rooker: No; the hon. Gentleman should not be stupid, I am not giving way with two minutes to go. We are on a guillotine.
The loss of the Bill would be highly damaging to the Government, to future pensioners, and to 5 million people currently at work who have no second pension provision and who are earning modest incomes of between £9,000 and £20,000 a year. We want to get them into a pension fund as quickly as possible under the stakeholder pension scheme. These measures cannot be brought back at a stroke and within a few short weeks because this House and the other place do not work like that.
The debates have been interesting, but I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will ask themselves whether, to their certain knowledge, everything that has been said is 100 per cent. accurate. They will know that, in Committee, on Report and here today, not all arguments adduced against the Government have been based on the facts of the Bill. We are making laws for our constituents, and we must get them right.
The Government are entitled to ask hon. Members to judge us on what is in the Bill, not on what they want to be in the Bill, what they think is in the Bill, or what they have been told is in the Bill by someone outside with an axe to grind. The Bill provides massive increases for hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens. It does not cut a single benefit from anyone currently receiving benefit. It is simply not true that it is based on cuts. It is based on reform, and I ask my hon. Friends to support the Government.

It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order this day

Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 325, Noes 265.

Division No. 282]
[7 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Blair, Rt Hon Tony


Ainger, Nick
Blears, Ms Hazel


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Blizzard, Bob


Alexander, Douglas
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Allen, Graham
Boateng, Paul


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Borrow, David


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Bradshaw, Ben


Atkins, Charlotte
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Banks, Tony
Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Barron, Kevin



Battle, John
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Bayley, Hugh
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Beard, Nigel
Browne, Desmond


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Buck, Ms Karen


Begg, Miss Anne
Burden, Richard


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Burgon, Colin


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Butler, Mrs Christine


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Benton, Joe
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Bermingham, Gerald
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Best, Harold
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Betts, Clive
Caplin, Ivor


Blackman, Liz
Casale, Roger






Cawsey, Ian
Hepburn, Stephen


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Heppell, John


Church, Ms Judith
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hill, Keith


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hodge, Ms Margaret



Hoey, Kate


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Home Robertson, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clelland, David
Hope, Phil


Coaker, Vernon
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Coleman, Iain
Howells, Dr Kim


Colman, Tony
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cooper, Yvette
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corbett, Robin
Humble, Mrs Joan


Corston, Ms Jean
Hurst, Alan


Cox, Tom
Hutton, John


Cranston, Ross
Iddon, Dr Brian


Crausby, David
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)



Jamieson, David


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jenkins, Brian


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Darvill, Keith



Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Denham, John
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dismore, Andrew
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Donohoe, Brian H
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Doran, Frank
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dowd, Jim
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Drew, David
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)
Kemp, Fraser


Edwards, Huw
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Efford, Clive
Khabra, Piara S


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kidney, David


Ennis, Jeff
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Fisher, Mark
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Flint, Caroline
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Follett, Barbara
Laxton, Bob


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lepper, David


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Leslie, Christopher


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Levitt, Tom


Foulkes, George
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Galbraith, Sam
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Gapes, Mike
Linton, Martin


Gardiner, Barry
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Lock, David


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Love, Andrew


Godsiff, Roger
McAvoy, Thomas


Goggins, Paul
McCabe, Steve


Golding, Mrs Llin
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)



Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Macdonald, Calum


Grocott, Bruce
McFall, John


Grogan, John
McIsaac, Shona


Gunnell, John
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Hain, Peter
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McNulty, Tony


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
MacShane, Denis


Hanson, David
Mactaggart, Fiona


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
McWalter, Tony


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Mallaber, Judy


Healey, John
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)





Martlew, Eric
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Maxton, John
Shipley, Ms Debra


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Meale, Alan
Singh, Marsha


Merron, Gillian
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Moffatt, Laura
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Moonie, Dr Lewis



Moran, Ms Margaret
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Morley, Elliot
Snape, Peter


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Soley, Clive


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Mountford, Kali
Spellar, John


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mudie, George
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mullin, Chris
Steinberg, Gerry


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Stevenson, George


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Norris, Dan
Stinchcombe, Paul


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Stoate, Dr Howard


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


O'Hara, Eddie
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Olner, Bill
Stringer, Graham


O'Neill, Martin
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Organ, Mrs Diana
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Palmer, Dr Nick



Pearson, Ian
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Pendry, Tom
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Perham, Ms Linda
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pickthall Colin
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pike, Peter L
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Plaskitt, James
Timms, Stephen


Pollard, Kerry
Tipping, Paddy


Pond, Chris
Todd, Mark


Pope, Greg
Touhig, Don


Pound, Stephen
Trickett, Jon


Powell, Sir Raymond
Truswell, Paul


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Primarolo, Dawn
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Prosser Gwyn
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Purchase, Ken
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)



Tynan, Bill


Quinn, Lawrie
Vaz, Keith


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Vis, Dr Rudi


Rammell, Bill
Walley, Ms Joan


Rapson, Syd
Ward, Ms Claire


Raynsford, Nick
Watts, David


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
White, Brian


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Wicks, Malcolm


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Rooker, Jeff



Rooney, Terry
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wills, Michael


Roy, Frank
Wilson, Brian


Ruane, Chris
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Ruddock, Joan
Woolas, Phil


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Wray, James


Ryan, Ms Joan
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Salter, Martin
Wyatt, Derek


Sarwar, Mohammad



Savidge, Malcolm
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sawford, Phil
Mr. Mike Hall and


Shaw, Jonathan
Mrs. Anne McGuire.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)


Allan, Richard
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Amess, David
Austin, John


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Baker, Norman


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Baldry, Tony






Ballard, Jackie
Evans, Nigel


Barnes, Harry
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Beggs, Roy
Faber, David


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Fabricant, Michael


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Fallon, Michael


Bennett, Andrew F
Fearn, Ronnie


Bercow, John
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Beresford, Sir Paul
Flight, Howard


Berry, Roger
Flynn, Paul


Blunt, Crispin
Forsythe, Clifford


Boswell, Tim
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Brady, Graham
Fox, Dr Liam


Brake, Tom
Fraser, Christopher


Brand, Dr Peter
Gale, Roger



Garnier, Edward


Brazier, Julian
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Breed, Colin
Gerrard, Neil


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gibb, Nick


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gill, Christopher


Burnett, John
Godman, Dr Norman A


Burns, Simon
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Burstow, Paul
Gorrie, Donald


Butterfill, John
Gray, James


Cable, Dr Vincent
Green, Damian


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Greenway, John



Grieve, Dominic


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Canavan, Dennis
Hague, Rt Hon William


Cash, William
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Caton, Martin
Hammond, Philip



Hancock, Mike


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Harris, Dr Evan



Harvey, Nick


Chaytor, David
Hawkins, Nick


Chidgey, David
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Chope, Christopher
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Clapham, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Clappison, James
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Horam, John



Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hunter, Andrew


Clwyd, Ann
Illsley, Eric


Collins, Tim
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Colvin, Michael
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Connarty, Michael
Jenkin, Bernard


Corbyn, Jeremy
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Cormack, Sir Patrick



Cotter, Brian
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Cran, James
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Keetch, Paul


Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)



Key, Robert


Curry, Rt Hon David
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Dalyell, Tam
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Kirkwood, Archy


Davidson, Ian
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui



Lansley, Andrew


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Leigh, Edward


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)
Letwin, Oliver



Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Day, Stephen
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Dobbin, Jim
Lidington, David


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Duncan, Alan
Livingstone, Ken


Duncan Smith, Iain
Livsey, Richard


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Llwyd, Elfyn


Etherington, Bill
Loughton, Tim





Luff, Peter
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


McAllion, John
Soames, Nicholas


McDonnell, John
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Sir Michael


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Spring, Richard


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Steen, Anthony


McLoughlin, Patrick
Streeter, Gary


Madel, Sir David
Stunell, Andrew


Maples, John
Swayne, Desmond


Marek, Dr John
Swinney, John


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Syms, Robert


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mates, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


May, Mrs Theresa
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Thompson, William


Moore, Michael
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Townend, John


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Tredinnick, David


Moss, Malcolm
Trend, Michael


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Nicholls, Patrick
Tyler, Paul


Norman, Archie
Tyrie, Andrew


Oaten, Mark
Viggers, Peter


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Wallace, James


Öpik, Lembit
Walter, Robert


Ottaway, Richard
Wardle, Charles


Page, Richard
Wareing, Robert N


Paice, James
Waterson, Nigel


Paterson, Owen
Webb, Steve


Pickles, Eric
Wells, Bowen


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Welsh, Andrew


Prior, David
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Randall, John
Whittingdale, John


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Rendel, David
Wilkinson, John


Robathan, Andrew
Willetts, David


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Willis, Phil


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Wilshire, David


Rowlands, Ted
Winnick, David


Ruffley, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


St Aubyn, Nick
Wise, Audrey


Salmond, Alex
Wood, Mike


Sanders, Adrian
Woodward, Shaun


Sayeed, Jonathan
Worthington, Tony


Sedgemore, Brian
Yeo, Tim


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Shepherd, Richard



Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Tellers for the Noes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Keith Simpson and


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Mr. Oliver Heald.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Government amendments (c) and (d) to the words so restored to the Bill agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 43, to leave out clause 58.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 262.

Division No. 283]
[7.16 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Ainger, Nick



Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Alexander, Douglas
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Allen, Graham
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Darvill, Keith


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Dawson, Hilton


Atkins, Charlotte
Denham, John


Banks, Tony
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Barron, Kevin
Dismore, Andrew


Battle, John
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Bayley, Hugh
Donohoe, Brian H


Beard, Nigel
Doran, Frank


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Dowd, Jim


Begg, Miss Anne
Drew, David


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Edwards, Huw


Benton, Joe
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Bermingham, Gerald
Ennis, Jeff


Best, Harold
Fisher, Mark


Betts, Clive
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Blackman, Liz
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Flint, Caroline


Blears, Ms Hazel
Follett, Barbara


Blizzard, Bob
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Boateng, Paul
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Borrow, David
Foulkes, George


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Galbraith, Sam


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Gapes, Mike


Bradshaw, Ben
Gardiner, Barry


Brinton, Mrs Helen
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda



Godsiff, Roger


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Goggins, Paul


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Browne, Desmond
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Buck, Ms Karen
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Burden, Richard
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Burgon, Colin
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Grocott, Bruce


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Grogan, John


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Gunnell, John


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Hain, Peter


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Caplin, Ivor
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Casale, Roger
Hanson, David


Cawsey, Ian
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Church, Ms Judith
Healey, John


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)



Hepburn, Stephen


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Heppell, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clelland, David
Hill, Keith


Coaker, Vernon
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hoey, Kate


Coleman, Iain
Home Robertson, John


Colman, Tony
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Hope, Phil


Cooper, Yvette
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Corbett, Robin
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Corston, Ms Jean
Howells, Dr Kim


Cox, Tom
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cranston, Ross
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Crausby, David
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Humble, Mrs Joan





Hurst, Alan
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Norris, Dan


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jamieson, David
O'Hara, Eddie


Jenkins, Brian
Olner, Bill


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
O'Neill, Martin


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Organ, Mrs Diana



Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pendry, Tom


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)



Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Pickthall, Colin


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pike, Peter L


Keeble, Ms Sally
Plaskitt, James


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pollard, Kerry


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Pond, Chris


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Pope, Greg


Kemp, Fraser
Pound, Stephen


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Khabra, Piara S
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kidney, David
Primarolo, Dawn


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Prosser, Gwyn


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Purchase, Ken


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Quinn, Lawrie


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Laxton, Bob
Rammell, Bill


Lepper, David
Rapson, Syd


Leslie, Christopher
Raynsford, Nick


Levitt, Tom
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen



Linton, Martin
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lock, David
Rooker, Jeff


Love, Andrew
Rooney, Terry


McAvoy, Thomas
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McCabe, Steve
Roy, Frank


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Ruane, Chris


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Ruddock, Joan



Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Ryan, Ms Joan


Macdonald, Calum
Salter, Martin


McFall, John
Sarwar, Mohammad


McIsaac, Shona
Savidge, Malcolm


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Sawford, Phil


Mackinlay, Andrew
Shaw, Jonathan


McNulty, Tony
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


MacShane, Denis
Shipley, Ms Debra


Mactaggart, Fiona
Singh, Marsha


McWalter, Tony
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)



Martlew, Eric
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Maxton, John
Snape, Peter


Meale, Alan
Soley, Clive


Merron, Gillian
Southworth, Ms Helen


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan



Miller, Andrew
Spellar, John


Moffatt, Laura
Squire, Ms Rachel


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Moran, Ms Margaret
Steinberg, Gerry


Morley, Elliot
Stevenson, George


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mountford, Kali
Stinchcombe, Paul


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Stoate, Dr Howard


Mudie, George
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Mullin, Chris
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Stringer, Graham






Stuart, Ms Gisela
Vaz, Keith


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Vis, Dr Rudi


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Walley, Ms Joan



Ward, Ms Claire


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Watts, David


Temple-Morris, Peter
White, Brian


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Wicks, Malcolm


Timms, Stephen
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Tipping, Paddy
Wills, Michael


Todd, Mark
Wilson, Brian


Touhig, Don
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Trickett, Jon
Woolas, Phil


Truswell, Paul
Wray, James


Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Wyatt, Derek


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)



Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Mr. Mike Hall and


Tynan, Bill
Mrs. Anne McGuire.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Clwyd, Ann


Allan, Richard
Collins, Tim


Amess, David
Colvin, Michael


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Connarty, Michael


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Cotter, Brian


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cousins, Jim


Austin, John
Cran, James


Baker, Norman
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Baldry, Tony
Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)


Ballard, Jackie



Barnes, Harry
Curry, Rt Hon David


Beggs, Roy
Dalyell, Tam


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Davidson, Ian


Bercow, John
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)


Berry, Roger



Blunt, Crispin
Day, Stephen


Body, Sir Richard
Dobbin, Jim


Boswell, Tim
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Duncan, Alan


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Duncan Smith, Iain


Brady, Graham
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Brake, Tom
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Brand, Dr Peter
Etherington, Bill


Brazier, Julian
Evans, Nigel


Breed, Colin
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Browning, Mrs Angela
Faber, David


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fabricant, Michael


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fallon, Michael


Burnett, John
Fearn, Ronnie


Burns, Simon
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Burstow, Paul
Flight, Howard


Butterfill, John
Flynn, Paul


Cable, Dr Vincent
Forsythe, Clifford


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Forth, Rt Hon Eric



Foster, Don (Bath)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Canavan, Dennis
Fox, Dr Liam


Cash, William
Fraser, Christopher


Caton, Martin
Gale, Roger


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Garnier, Edward



George, Andrew (St Ives)


Chaytor, David
Gerrard, Neil


Chidgey, David
Gibb, Nick


Chope, Christopher
Gibson, Dr Ian


Clapham, Michael
Gill, Christopher


Clappison, James
Godman, Dr Norman A


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Gorrie, Donald


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Gray, James





Green, Damian
Norman, Archie


Greenway, John
Oaten, Mark


Grieve, Dominic
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Öpik, Lembit


Hague, Rt Hon William
Ottaway, Richard


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Page, Richard


Hammond, Philip
Paice, James


Hancock, Mike
Paterson, Owen


Harris, Dr Evan
Pickles, Eric


Harvey, Nick
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hawkins, Nick
Prior, David


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Randall, John


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Rendel, David


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Robathan, Andrew


Hopkins, Kelvin
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Horam, John
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Rowlands, Ted


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Ruffley, David


Hunter, Andrew
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Illsley, Eric
St Aubyn, Nick


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Salmond, Alex


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Sanders, Adrian


Jenkin, Bernard
Sayeed, Jonathan


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Sedgemore, Brian



Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Shepherd, Richard


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Skinner, Dennis


Keetch, Paul
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Key, Robert
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Soames, Nicholas


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Kirkwood, Archy
Spicer, Sir Michael


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Spring, Richard


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lansley, Andrew
Steen, Anthony


Leigh, Edward
Streeter, Gary


Letwin, Oliver
Stunell, Andrew


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Swayne, Desmond


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Swinney, John


Lidington, David
Syms, Robert


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Livingstone, Ken
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Livsey, Richard
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Loughton, Tim
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Luff, Peter
Thompson, William


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Tonge, Dr Jenny


McAllion, John
Townend, John


McDonnell, John
Tredinnick, David


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Trend, Michael


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Tyler, Paul


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Tyrie, Andrew


McLoughlin, Patrick
Viggers, Peter


Madel, Sir David
Wallace, James


Maples, John
Walter, Robert


Marek, Dr John
Wardle, Charles


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wareing, Robert N


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Waterson, Nigel


Mates, Michael
Webb, Steve


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Wells, Bowen


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Welsh, Andrew


May, Mrs Theresa
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Whittingdale, John


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Moore, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Willetts, David


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Moss, Malcolm
Willis, Phil


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Wilshire, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Winnick, David






Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Yeo, Tim


Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wise, Audrey



Wood, Mike
Tellers for the Noes:


Woodward, Shaun
Mr. Keith Simpson and


Worthington, Tony
Mr. Oliver Heald.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Government amendments (c), (d) and (e) to the words so restored to the Bill agreed to.

Lords amendments 44 and 45 agreed to [one with Special Entry].

Lords amendment: No. 46, to leave out clause 60.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

The House divided: Ayes 326, Noes 253.

Division No. 284]
[7.30 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Ainger, Nick
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Caplin, Ivor


Alexander, Douglas
Casale, Roger


Allen, Graham
Cawsey, Ian


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Chaytor, David


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Church, Ms Judith


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Atkins, Charlotte
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Banks, Tony



Barron, Kevin
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Battle, John
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Bayley, Hugh
Clelland, David


Beard, Nigel
Coaker, Vernon


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Coffey, Ms Ann


Begg, Miss Anne
Coleman, Iain


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Colman, Tony


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cooper, Yvette


Bennett, Andrew F
Corbett, Robin


Benton, Joe
Corston, Ms Jean


Bermingham, Gerald
Cox, Tom


Best, Harold
Cranston, Ross


Betts, Clive
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Blackman, Liz
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Blair, Rt Hon Tony



Blears, Ms Hazel
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Blizzard, Bob
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Boateng, Paul
Darvill, Keith


Borrow, David
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Dawson, Hilton


Bradshaw, Ben
Denham, John


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Dismore, Andrew



Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Donohoe, Brian H


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Doran, Frank


Browne, Desmond
Dowd, Jim


Buck, Ms Karen
Drew, David


Burden, Richard
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Burgon, Colin
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Edwards, Huw


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Eftord, Clive


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Ennis, Jeff





Fisher, Mark
Kidney, David


Fitzpatrick, Jim
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Fitzsimons, Lorna
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Flint, Caroline
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Follett, Barbara
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Laxton, Bob


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Lepper, David


Foulkes, George
Leslie, Christopher


Galbraith, Sam
Levitt, Tom


Gapes, Mike
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Gardiner, Barry
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Linton, Martin


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Godsiff, Roger
Lock, David


Goggins, Paul
Love, Andrew


Golding, Mrs Llin
McAvoy, Thomas


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McCabe, Steve


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)



Grocott, Bruce
McDonagh, Siobhain


Grogan, John
Macdonald, Calum


Gunnell, John
McFall, John


Hain, Peter
McIsaac, Shona


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hanson, David
McNulty, Tony


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
MacShane, Denis


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Mactaggart, Fiona


Healey, John
McWalter, Tony


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Mallaber, Judy


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Hepburn, Stephen
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Heppell, John
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Martlew, Eric


Hill, Keith
Maxton, John


Hinchliffe, David
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Meale, Alan


Hoey, Kate
Merron, Gillian


Home Robertson, John
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hoon, Geoffrey
Miller, Andrew


Hope, Phil
Moffatt, Laura


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Howells, Dr Kim
Morley, Elliot


Hoyle, Lindsay
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mountford, Kali


Humble, Mrs Joan
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Hurst, Alan
Mudie, George


Hutton, John
Mullin, Chris


Iddon, Dr Brian
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Illsley, Eric
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Norris, Dan


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jamieson, David
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jenkins, Brian
O'Hara, Eddie


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Olner, Bill


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
O'Neill, Martin



Organ, Mrs Diana


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pendry, Tom


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Pickthall, Colin


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pike, Peter L


Keeble, Ms Sally
Plaskitt, James


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pollard, Kerry


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Pond, Chris


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Pope, Greg


Kemp, Fraser
Pound, Stephen


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Khabra, Piara S
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)






Primarolo, Dawn
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Prosser, Gwyn
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Purchase, Ken
Stringer, Graham


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Quinn, Lawrie
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Rammell, Bill



Rapson, Syd
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Raynsford, Nick
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Rooker, Jeff
Timms, Stephen


Rooney, Terry
Tipping, Paddy


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Todd, Mark


Roy, Frank
Touhig, Don


Ruane, Chris
Trickett, Jon


Ruddock, Joan
Truswell, Paul


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Salter, Martin
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Sarwar, Mohammad
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Savidge, Malcolm
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Sawford, Phil
Tynan, Bill


Shaw, Jonathan
Vaz, Keith


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Vis, Dr Rudi


Shipley, Ms Debra
Walley, Ms Joan


Singh, Marsha
Ward, Ms Claire


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Watts, David


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
White, Brian


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Wicks, Malcolm



Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)



Snape, Peter
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Soley, Clive
Wills, Michael


Southworth, Ms Helen
Wilson, Brian


Spellar, John
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Woolas, Phil


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Wray, James


Steinberg, Gerry
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stevenson, George
Wyatt, Derek


Stewart, David (Inverness E)



Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stinchcombe, Paul
Mr. Mike Hall and


Stoate, Dr Howard
Mrs. Anne McGuire.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Breed, Colin


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Allan, Richard
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Amess, David
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Burnett, John


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Burns, Simon


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Burstow, Paul


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Butterfill, John


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cable, Dr Vincent


Austin, John
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Baker, Norman



Baldry, Tony
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Ballard, Jackie
Canavan, Dennis


Barnes, Harry
Cash, William


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Caton, Martin


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Bercow, John



Beresford, Sir Paul
Chidgey, David


Berry, Roger
Chope, Christopher


Blunt, Crispin
Clapham, Michael


Body, Sir Richard
Clappison, James


Boswell, Tim
Claris, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Brady, Graham
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Brake, Tom
Clwyd, Ann


Brand, Dr Peter
Collins, Tim


Brazier, Julian
Colvin, Michael





Connarty, Michael
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Cotter, Brian
Keetch, Paul


Cousins, Jim
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Cran, James
Key, Robert


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie



Kirkwood, Archy


Curry, Rt Hon David
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Dalyell, Tam
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Lansley, Andrew


Davidson, Ian
Leigh, Edward


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Letwin, Oliver


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)



Lidington, David


Day, Stephen
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Dobbin, Jim
Livsey, Richard


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Duncan, Alan
Llwyd, Elfyn


Duncan Smith, Iain
Loughton, Tim


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Luff, Peter


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Etherington, Bill
McAllion, John


Evans, Nigel
McDonnell, John


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Faber, David
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Fabricant, Michael
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Fallon, Michael
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Fearn, Ronnie
McLoughlin, Patrick


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Madel, Sir David


Flight, Howard
Maples, John


Flynn, Paul
Marek, Dr John


Forsythe, Clifford
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Foster, Don (Bath)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
May, Mrs Theresa


Fox, Dr Liam
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Fraser, Christopher
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Gale, Roger
Moore, Michael


Garnier, Edward
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Gerrard, Neil
Moss, Malcolm


Gibb, Nick
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Gill, Christopher
Nicholls, Patrick


Godman, Dr Norman A
Norman, Archie


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Oaten, Mark


Gorrie, Donald
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Gray, James
Öpik, Lembit


Green, Damian
Ottaway, Richard


Greenway, John
Page, Richard


Grieve, Dominic
Paice, James


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Paterson, Owen


Hague, Rt Hon William
Pickles, Eric


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hammond, Philip
Prior, David


Hancock, Mike
Randall, John


Harris, Dr Evan
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Harvey, Nick
Rendel, David


Hawkins, Nick
Robathan, Andrew


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Rowlands, Ted


Hopkins, Kelvin
Ruffley, David


Horam, John
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
St Aubyn, Nick


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Salmond, Alex


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Sanders, Adrian


Hunter, Andrew
Sayeed, Jonathan


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Shepherd, Richard


Jenkin, Bernard
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Skinner, Dennis



Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)






Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Walter, Robert


Soames, Nicholas
Wardle, Charles


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Wareing, Robert N


Spicer, Sir Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Spring, Richard
Webb, Steve


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wells, Bowen


Steen, Anthony
Welsh, Andrew


Streeter, Gary
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Stunell, Andrew
Whittingdale, John


Swayne, Desmond
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Swinney, John
Wilkinson, John



Willetts, David


Syms, Robert
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Willis Phil


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Wilshire, David


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Winnick, David


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Thompson, William
Wise, Audrey


Tonge, Dr Jenny
Wood, Mike


Townend, John
Woodward, Shaun


Tredinnick, David
Worthington, Tony


Trend, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Tyler, Paul



Tyrie, Andrew
Tellers for the Noes:


Viggers, Peter
Mr. Keith Simpson and


Wallace, James
Mr. Oliver Heald.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Before Clause 1

ADDITIONAL PENSION

Lords amendment: No. 1, to insert the following new clause—

PART ZI ADDITIONAL PENSION ADDITIONAL PENSION FOR WIDOWS OR WIDOWERS

(".—(1) The Secretary to State shall by regulations make provision for one or more of the following—

(a) to substitute, in any provision of the Contributions and Benefits Act which relates to additional pension for widows or widowers, for any sum payable by way of such pension as is derived from the contributions of a deceased spouse, such higher sum as may be prescribed;
(b) to substitute, in any such provision, for any prescribed reference to the year 2000, a reference to such later year as may be prescribed;
(c) to establish a scheme to compensate persons who are widowed after 5th April 2000 and who suffered loss as a result of any action or failure to act in reliance on incorrect information received from a Government department with respect to the reduction in the additional pension payable to them as a result of the enactment of the former section 19 of the Social Security Act 1986.

(2) If regulations under subsection (1) are not in force on 5th April 2000, then until such time as such regulations are in force, the provisions of the Contributions and Benefits Act to which paragraph (a) of that subsection apply shall continue to have effect as in force on that date.

(3) No regulations shall be made under subsection (1) unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.")

Mr. Rooker: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the Government amendment in lieu thereof, amendment (a) to the amendment in lieu thereof, and the consequential Government amendment.

Mr. Rooker: This part of the Bill deals with inherited SERPS and the mis-selling by the previous Government of the changes to the scheme that were legislated for many years ago.
In 1986 the previous Government made substantial changes to the state earnings-related pension scheme and gave a considerable period of notice before the change was to be made—it is due in April next year. That notice was intended to allow people who might be affected plenty of time to alter their financial arrangements. The then Government promised wide publicity, but it was never delivered.
As in other cases, Ministers in the present Government are not allowed to see the papers of the previous Government, but I would give my right arm—metaphorically and politically—to see those papers, because they must have had some discussions about deliberately—

Mr. Pickles: rose—

Mr. Rooker: I have not made the allegation yet, but I shall give way.

Mr. Pickles: Perhaps I can anticipate the Minister. Why was the Benefits Agency still giving out duff information on 14 April this year?

Mr. Rooker: I shall come to that. I am simply saying that there must have been a policy of not carrying through the promised publicity campaign. On 25 February 1986, the then Minister of State, Department of Social Security, our former colleague Tony Newton, now in the other place, said:
We have every intention of mounting a major publicity campaign to herald the pension changes contained in the present Bill, should it become an Act, as we expect that it will."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 25 February 1986; c. 451.]
Two days later, on 27 February 1986, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, our colleague the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), said:
The provision diminishing the amount of SERPS which may be inherited from the year 2000 by a surviving spouse to half of the deceased's entitlement instead of, as at present, the whole sum, corrects what has widely been felt as an over-generous provision indeed. I point out to the hon. Lady that because of the projected position that exists until the year 2000, people will have plenty of time and ample warning. There will be no sudden, overnight, dramatic change in their position and they will have plenty of time in which to seek to make major alternative provision for survivors if they wish."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 27 February 1986; c. 463.]


The previous Government were legislating well in advance, in 1986. Similarly, changes to the retirement age for men and women over 10 years will be phased in from 2010 to 2020. It was right to give plenty of warning, but people have to be told.
7.45 pm
We cannot hide behind the fact that we live in a parliamentary democracy and say that no decisions here are made behind closed doors and people should take account of what happens in Parliament. The press stopped reporting what happens here years ago. There was no great beanfeast over the change. It is regretted that no publicity campaign ever took place, to the extent that, as the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) rightly said, earlier this year the Benefits Agency was still giving out incorrect information. The Government have a responsibility to put right the difficulties. We are responsible for only part of the delay. We could have done it in the first year, but we did not. We could have done it in the second year, but we did not. We are certainly dealing with it before our third anniversary.

Mr. Paul Burstow: Have the Government commissioned an audit to ascertain whether there are any other changes to regulations or legislation that have not been publicised which could cause similar problems?

Mr. Rooker: I understand that Ministers did that long before I arrived at the Department. It is a frequent problem. At the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food I found little matters hidden away that had been decided a long time ago but which suddenly came up and bit my ankles without warning. We are not aware of anything else in the Department remotely on the scale of this problem. I shall make clear the amounts of money involved.
I admit that wrong information was still being given out at the beginning of this year, but as soon as we knew, we took immediate steps to ensure that Benefits Agency staff were able to provide correct advice. We have made a full check on the accuracy of all our leaflets. When I go to benefit offices—I have not done so as often as I would like in the past few weeks, but I have been to a few, not all in my region—I make a point of looking at the leaflets on display to ensure that information on the age change for retirement, particularly as it affects women, is on display.
The Government have been pressed at every stage of the Bill to resolve the issue from next year. Preventing the problem in April 2000 requires a change in primary legislation. This is our opportunity. Individuals who have acted to their detriment as a result of bad advice would have a reasonable case for redress in the courts. Some hon. Members have complained to the Parliamentary Commissioner about the issue. I have answered many letters from Members of Parliament about it during my three months at the Department. I do not remember anyone raising the case with me as a constituency Member, so I have not had to write a letter to myself—but that day may come.
Large numbers of people who could be affected are already pensioners. We do not want to leave them with the worry of seeking legal redress. That would not be

good government anyway. A range of solutions have been suggested during the passage of the Bill. The scale of the likely cost is well known. We have answered parliamentary questions on that. One option put to us was to delay the whole thing for 10 years. That would cost about £5.5 billion, plus about £1 billion a year for some time following that, because it would not get us out of the whole difficulty. That burden would be borne by today's contributors because of the nature of SERPS.
We have explored all the options thoroughly. During my 13 weeks at the Department I have been involved in more meetings and discussions on this issue than on any other single subject. That is partly because of the timetable that we are up against. We have tried to find a precise solution to put in the Bill. We have not been able to do that, for reasons that I shall explain. That is why we have the amendment.
We do not intend to overturn the policy by changing legislation retrospectively. Before anyone reminds me, I know that we opposed the change at the time, but it is not sensible to get into that debate. Millions of people out there are worried about changes in SERPS and what is coming next April, and we need to reassure them.
The change will bring the state provision clearly into line with private pension schemes. In the Green Paper last year, we made clear that we wanted to reverse the current position, in which 60 per cent. of spending on pensions is state expenditure and 40 per cent. is private. It is our long-term policy to reverse that over 50 years. We cannot do that by sitting back and waiting for things to happen.
The policy simplifies one element of people's decision about which pension option to choose. However, dealing with the mess we have been landed with is not straightforward, and we do not want to announce a decision until we are absolutely sure. We will make an announcement as soon as possible. I cannot say when, but by implication, before next April would be our intention.
The amendment says that if we have not come up with a solution of either a delay or a protected rights scheme, the trigger is in the Bill to stop the change occurring next April, so that the situation will not arise.

Mr. Pickles: The Minister is being most reasonable, and I am not saying this to be difficult. However, the Minister's noble Friend Baroness Hollis said that the Government would make an announcement before the end of deliberations. Also—and with great respect—I must remind the Minister that he said two weeks ago that the Government would come to a decision within three weeks. He is now saying that this has slipped, perhaps until April. Could he tell us why?

Mr. Rooker: In effect, we are making an announcement with the publication of the amendment. That is not the solution, but it gives us two options. We have not yet come to a conclusion. I realise that the hon. Gentleman is quoting Baroness Hollis, and we are amending Lord Rix's amendment. I pay tribute to Lord Rix for his work and his contribution to the debates in the other place. We owe him our thanks for providing us with a legislative way forward—albeit one that does not provide a solution.
The amendment provides the power to introduce regulations and will allow the Government to do one or more of the following: to vary the percentage rate of


inherited SERPS for some or all of the widows and widowers; to postpone the change to 50 per cent. to a specified later date, and I have given an example of the cost if that were to be in 10 years' time; or to run a protected rights scheme. If none of those powers is exercised, the clause will ensure that the 100 per cent. inheritance of SERPS continues to apply after April 2000 until regulations are in force.
It would be untenable to leave people in a situation where regulations could come in overnight, without warning, and we will give a reasonable warning of changes. It would not be in the spirit of good government to say, "In six months' time, there will be new rules." Whatever we do will have to be phased in. If it is a protected rights scheme, it will take a lot of careful planning to ensure that the millions of potential beneficiaries can be dealt with individually, as citizens. We cannot do this on the back of an envelope.
We have lost a decade or more since the legislation was put on the statute book, but it will not be that long again if the amendment and the Bill are passed tonight. The regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, and both Houses will have ample opportunity to debate the changes. That may be on the Floor, in Committee or even in the new Chamber.
As Ministers, we will not shy away from explaining the way forward that we choose, as potentially 30 million people—those who have paid national insurance, existing pensioners and people who will not retire for 10 years or so—are involved. Not all of them will be able to claim that they were mis-sold pensions, but that is not the issue. We are dealing with our fellow citizens, and we must be as open as possible.

Mr. Burstow: The Minister is being constructive, and it would be helpful if he could give the House more details. Does he envisage making an announcement before or after the work of the ombudsman?

Mr. Rooker: I cannot give an answer to that. The matter was referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner by right hon. and hon. Members, and we are co-operating. The amendment contains a lot of detail and once we have decided, we will come back and report to the House.

Mr. Jim Cousins: My hon. Friend is being frank and fair, and all of us accept the Government's real difficulties. Could he indicate whether in whatever scheme he comes up with any route that will require claims for compensation to be made on an individual basis will be as limited as possible?

Mr. Rooker: I am not sure that I caught the thrust of my hon. Friend's question. If we have a protected rights scheme, we will want to ensure that everyone with a rightful claim is able to make it. There will be issues about eligibility, but millions of people who are currently still working might have a say, as might current pensioners.
The handling of this matter in the past was unfortunate and I appreciate the distress that has been caused. I appreciate also the massive media attention, which has

come a bit late in the day. If the media had reported the changes over the years, we would not be in this position today. [Interruption.] That is a legitimate point.
We do not require our proceedings to be reported. We know that, years ago, the press and media generally—the BBC included—decided to stop reporting proceedings in this House. Most of those involved—who were probably contracted out, in well-heeled occupational schemes, which is fine—were not bothered about SERPS and national insurance. "That's for the workers," they said. "We are not reporting that."
I am aware, too, that the Liberal Democrats tabled amendments to our new proposal to provide for a 10-year delay. I have set out the cost of that, and such a delay would not catch everyone who may be involved. It catches a large number, of course, but one might need to go beyond 10 years. That is why it has been difficult to arrive at a decision. Whatever we do will have a possible cost of billions of pounds—money that is not planned for in terms of public expenditure, and which must be found by today's taxpayers and today's national insurance contributors.
I therefore hope that the House will give fair wind to the Government amendment in lieu of the Lords amendment.

8 pm

Mr. Pickles: The Minister made a reasoned speech and we will certainly support the Government's amendment in lieu. I recognise the problems involved in finding an ideal solution. The Liberal Democrats' amendment (a) to the Government's amendment in lieu has the potential to cause injustice and fail to catch all the people we would want to catch, and I hope that they will not press it to a vote, because we should give the Government a chance to come up with a final solution, to use the Minister's phrase.
There was a small element of partisanship in what the Minister said. It is about time that someone, from whichever Dispatch Box, said sorry. Some people should accept responsibility for what happened, because there has been considerable injustice. I said in Committee that I accept my share of responsibility.
It matters not a jot that I was chairman of Bradford education committee at the time when the measure went through. We are all responsible, because we clearly came to a view in 1986 that would have a fundamental effect on people's eventual pension, and nothing happened. It is too easy to shrug off that responsibility. Ultimately, such decisions are for the Chamber. It is our job to ensure that Departments do not simply ignore the legislation that we pass.
The Minister was very fair in saying that the Government now accept what they opposed in opposition. It is right to get the provisions into line with occupational pensions. We cannot go back to the position that provisionally exists now. We should ensure that the scheme is generally accepted. It is right to allow considerable time for people to make appropriate decisions according to their needs.
Unfortunately, we completely wasted 16 years. There was no publicity campaign. The present Leader of the House said at the time:
If the Government are going to release ample publicity warning people that their pensions and the widows' pensions will be halved, not only will we welcome it, but we shall help the Minister to distribute it."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 27 February 1986; c. 471.]
That is all very fine, although no one would have expected Labour Opposition Members, or indeed Ministers, to go out on the streets to hand out leaflets; one might reasonably have expected the Department to do it, though.
We have done people a great injustice. People wrote to and telephoned the Benefits Agency and its predecessor for advice and made investment decisions on the basis of the wrong advice that they were given. In Committee, we considered the way in which people contacted the agency. There is a record of the letters but not of the telephone calls. The Minister's predecessor made considerable progress on the quality of proof that people acted on wrong information. What is the Government's current thinking on that?
I learned in Committee that on the very day in January on which a memo was sent out to instruct Benefits Agency officers how to deal with the problem, the agency issued a letter giving an incorrect figure to a member of the public. In that memo, which the Minister supplied to me, no reference was made to sending out corrections to incorrect information. I hope that he will bear that in mind before he talks about mis-selling in future.
I am glad that the Minister has done an audit, but there is still a muddle. It has been suggested that the first indication of when changes were made was in February 1996, but my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) has discovered that that is not so. Some people collect first editions of interesting works and he collects Benefits Agency guides from previous years. That probably says something about my boss.
The agency's information guide of May 1995, on page 221, says:
Changes to SERPS …
Widows and widowers over 65 will be able to inherit up to half their partner's SERPS pension, instead of the full amount. This particular change will not happen until the year 2000.
That was on the desk of everybody who worked for the agency.

Mr. Howard Flight: Will my hon. Friend comment on the contrast between those in the private sector who failed to know and implement the rules correctly and who are being fined and often driven out of business, and those in the public sector who have done the same thing and for whom there seems to be no penalty whatever?

Mr. Pickles: That is a valid point. My hon. Friend was the first to elicit the original date, in a question to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and here we have something dated a year earlier. The guide was on every desk in the Benefits Agency in 1995, yet agency staff paid not a jot or tittle of attention to it, even when it was all over the newspapers. That is deeply worrying.
I hope that the Minister will come up with a solution. He was not quite right to say that the Government amendment in lieu honours the promise made by Lady

Hollis, because it is essentially Lord Rix's amendment with a few bells on. I am willing to give the Minister the benefit of the doubt, to give him time and to promise him our co-operation, but I hope that we will have a known and agreed solution to this very difficult problem before April 2000.

Mr. Burstow: I echo the final point made by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). We must find the right solution to the issue of misinformation on inheritance rights in respect of SERPS, even if that takes a bit of time, and I warmly welcome the Minister's constructive approach in explaining what the Government are doing to try to resolve a problem that they inherited and that they wish they could halve now, rather than facing the possibility of people's entitlements being halved.
When the other place debated the failure to publicise the 1986 changes that halved widows' entitlement to inherit SERPS pensions after April next year, Earl Russell made a telling point. He said that the issue was not necessarily a question of a failing of a political party—although I can understand why the Minister would wish to suggest that—but of the failure of government as an organisation to deliver. We will not know if that carries political overtones for many years to come, until the papers are revealed and some interested journalist digs out the necessary details of incompetence or whatever it was.
It is important to deal with the practicalities of how we move on from the current position. There has been a fundamental breakdown in communications between the policy part of the Department of Social Security and its implementation part on this issue. That is why I asked the Minister in an intervention a few moments ago whether similar breakdowns have occurred in other aspects of legislation in the past or since 1986.
It is clear that, as a consequence of that fundamental breakdown, the relevant advice leaflets were not properly updated, despite the references that have been made to the handbook this evening. Many of the basic advice leaflets available in Benefits Agency offices were not updated for 10 years. Many hon. Members have received correspondence from constituents who feel aggrieved by the situation, and I have passed on several examples from my constituency. Incorrect advice was provided in correspondence, on the telephone and over the counter at Benefits Agency offices. As we have heard already, even in April this year after the issue was well publicised, the public were still being given incorrect information and being misinformed about their entitlement.
I pay tribute to the work that has been done by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) to raise the profile of the issue and to reach a solution. Over the past year, he has written three times on the issue of compensation and he has been instrumental in approaching the Parliamentary Commissioner to begin the investigation into whether the Department of Social Security is guilty of maladministration. Together with a representative from The Sun—I cannot think of a more unusual alliance—my hon. Friend also presented a petition to No. 10 to highlight the concerns on the issue.
So far we have had many announcements that there will be an announcement. The Minister moved further tonight by adding some more bells and whistles to the amendment passed in the Lords, but we still do not have a definitive


announcement. I speak for many of my constituents and others who feel that the sooner a concrete set of recommendations and proposals is in the public domain, so that everyone knows where they stand, the better.
When the scandal of private pension mis-selling came to light, the Government were right to insist that companies paid compensation and wrote to everyone who might be affected. That has not happened in this case and it is a shame that the Government did not apply to themselves the same rules that applied to the private sector. If they had, we would not be debating the issue again this evening. If action had already been taken, hundreds of people who have been, or who expect to be, affected by the changes would not be agonising about how they can afford to replace the income that their wives stand to lose.
In Committee, my hon. Friends tabled amendments that set out three options to try to address the issue. The first was that widows should continue to receive the full SERPS entitlement after April 2000. The second was that a gradual reduction should be phased in—for example, a 10 per cent. reduction could be made each year over five years, to try to ease the transition. The third option was a postponement to 2010.
Lords amendment No. 1 was tabled by Lord Rix to try to sort out the mess. It attempted to incorporate the various options that had been put forward in this House and in the other place. It was welcome news for many outside Parliament that the Government accepted the amendment as a first step, and tonight we have a longer and more detailed amendment from the Government that puts more flesh on the bones by spelling out the matters on which the Secretary of State may prescribe regulations for a compensation scheme. It was interesting to read the Government's amendment, because it gives much more detail about the process of a compensation scheme and I wonder whether we can take clues about the Government's thinking from the amendment. Have they decided that it is the way ahead? If the Minister could confirm that, it would be both helpful and informative.
8.15 pm
The Government have already said that any compensation scheme would need to take account of misleading written communications and also advice given by telephone. That was accepted in an exchange in the House on 24 June, during a Supply-day debate initiated by the Liberal Democrats. The Liberal Democrat amendment would provide a minimum period of 10 years for any delay in implementing the SERPS reduction. If the Government opt for the postponement option to solve the problem, 10 years would offer people a reasonable time—we have already debated the meaning of the word reasonable tonight—to make other arrangements.
The House originally intended, when it debated the issue in 1986, to give people 14 years' notice of the changes, but people will have had just four years' notice since the Benefits Agency woke up to the fact that it had failed to amend its leaflets. Therefore, it seems only fair to give people the 10 years' notice that they never had. The gross cost of a 10-year postponement, according to a

recent written answer, would be £60 million in the first year, with a peak of £1.16 billion in 2010. The Minister also gave a net cost figure of some £5 billion.
Another written answer revealed that the projected surpluses on the national insurance fund for each of the next three years are between £1.4 billion and £1.6 billion. In other words, the money to pay for a postponement is available in the national insurance fund and, therefore, a postponement of 10 years is affordable. It has been speculated that the Government are considering a five-year postponement, but such a short delay would leave the Government open to further claims for compensation through the courts.
Our amendment seeks to rule out any postponement for less than 10 years, because that would assist the Government by reducing the likely numbers of compensation claims and the consequential administration costs of any compensation scheme that would still be necessary, and would perhaps give greater certainty to those many people who are concerned about their SERPS entitlement in the future. The clock is ticking and we have only six months until the April deadline when the changes would have been introduced. The Government amendment puts that on hold until they can come up with a scheme, but it is never satisfactory to leave something in limbo and that is especially true of people's pension provision. I hope that the Government will give people information at the earliest opportunity so that their minds can be put at rest.

Mr. Eddie O'Hara: It is refreshing to have such an honest and forthright Minister fronting such a difficult debate. My hon. Friend has been straight with the House and we should give him credit for that. It is also refreshing to have a Government who are prepared to hold up their hands and accept responsibility, even though the mistake was made by their predecessors. There are two types of responsibility—responsibility for the mistake, and responsibility to the people affected by it. The Government accept that it has the latter type of responsibility.
It is absolutely necessary to introduce some corrective measure to overcome the fiasco facing us in connection with SERPS. SERPS is not quite the same as the national insurance contributions scheme. Because it is an insurance against possible illness or incapacity that can occur at any time, payments into the NIC scheme can be redeemed at any time. People who are lucky do not need them, and I have always been very fortunate in that I have never had to redeem much of my national insurance contributions.
SERPS is more akin to an annuity or an endowment. Under that scheme, extra payments are made that are intended to be redeemed on retirement or at the death of a spouse. Alternative annuity and endowment schemes are available in the market, of which the people affected by the proposal might have preferred to take advantage.
The enormous amount of work that has gone into the new clause seems to point the way towards a possible compensation scheme. My hon. Friend the Minister honestly believes that a compensation scheme is better than deferment, mainly on grounds of cost. He gave the gross figures to prove it, although out of those gross figures can be taken tax payments incurred as people's


income rises above tax thresholds, and also the benefits that people forfeit as their income rises as a result of SERPS.
My hon. Friend also said that a scheme of deferment, although it would catch a lot of people, would not be perfect and would therefore not be fair. However, would a scheme of compensation be perfect or fair? I suggest that it would not, and that it would be expensive. No figures have been given, but I would guess that administering a scheme such as that foreshadowed in the new clause would be horrendously expensive.
A scheme of compensation would open up a can of worms. People who received incorrect advice would have to be distinguished from people who did not seek advice in the first place. People who did not seek advice may have thought that they already knew the rules: they may have seen how the system worked for their brothers and sisters and for the friends with whom they have grown old, and decided that they did not need to seek advice. Would it be fair to distinguish between those who did not seek advice and those who did not think that they needed it?
A problem remains even when people seek advice. The question would arise whether that advice was given in writing, or by telephone. How does one prove that advice was given by telephone? A telephone call cannot be photocopied or put in an envelope. The problems would be horrendous.
Anyone with a good lawyer and accountant would be able to cope with such a compensation scheme, but we must be realistic: we are talking about people who do not employ lawyers and accountants. My hon. Friend himself said that we are talking about the millions, rather than the privileged few. They will not be able to find their way around a scheme that demands that they be well versed in matters of finance.
It would be impossible for a scheme of compensation to operate fairly and adequately. If one can say that about a scheme of deferment, one can say it with knobs on about a scheme of compensation. It would also be horrendously expensive to operate, with most of the money going on administration instead of to claimants. The advantages of a scheme of compensation, in terms of cost to the Treasury, could only accrue as a result of massive lack of take-up. If ever a scheme were designed for massive non-take-up it would be a scheme of compensation for a mess such as the one that the Government have inherited.

Mr. David Rendel: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, given what happened with the mis-selling of private pensions, the introduction of a compensation scheme such as has been described would leave the Government morally bound to write to everyone who could possibly be affected to advise them that they might be eligible for compensation? In that case, the Government might not be able to restrict the numbers of people who took it up.

Mr. O'Hara: That is a helpful remark, but I would not go so far: my hope is that I will convince my hon. Friend to consider introducing a scheme that might be fairer to the people involved.
In conclusion, I do not believe that a scheme of compensation can be fair. It can only make sense to the bean counters of the Treasury. Deferment may not be

perfect, but it would be far better. I suggest that any costs incurred in a deferment would compare favourably with the costs of a scheme of compensation, in terms both of the total amount and of how well the money would be spent.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The focus so far has been almost exclusively on amendment No. 1. Would I be in order if I moved the debate on to amendment No. 33?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are not dealing with that amendment at the moment.

Mr. Rooker: I was under the impression that we were still dealing with amendment No. 1. The debate involves a big issue but is narrow in that sense.
I am grateful to all the hon. Members who have contributed. There is a general understanding of how difficult it is to achieve a solution to this problem, and I understand how important it is to resolve the matter as quickly as possible.
Naturally, I have a preferred approach to this matter, which I have discussed with colleagues in the Government. However, I hope that I have not given the House a clue about my preferred approach: my intention is to support the Government's solution, given that one day my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I might have to present it to the House in detail.
A balance has to be struck in these matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) summed up exactly the problems that could be encountered with a compensation scheme. He asked whether all the people involved would be caught, or whether too much public money would be spent on lawyers and accountants and administration, rather than being used for the greatest good. On the other hand, of course, there would be similar pitfalls with a scheme of deferment.
The Government have considered various options with the intention of trying to get a protected rights scheme—my legal advice is that that term is preferable to what my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South called a compensation scheme—up and running by April next year. It was simply not possible to do that. We cannot afford to have a scheme that does not work when millions of people are involved.
8.30 pm
The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) asked about the Benefits Agency guide. It is not training material, and it would not be used to advise staff. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) highlighted the key point that misinformation was provided to the public for 10 years. I do not equivocate about that.
When I spoke about £5.5 billion, I was using shorthand; the figure for 10 years would be £5.5 billion with some add-ons, and the figure is not net but cumulative over the first 10 years. The figures bandied about for a protected rights scheme are much more diffuse, and that is one reason why reaching a conclusion is difficult. We are not short-changing people. That would be totally wrong. We will identify a solution as soon as possible.
Points were made about the national insurance fund surplus, although, frankly, hon. Members who have spoken tonight have spent it about five times over. We cannot use a projected surplus for the current year or for any short-term period to make very long-term expenditure decisions. If the decision is delayed for 10 years, or if we create a protected rights scheme, there will be enormous consequences for years to come. The national insurance fund surplus could not be used in that way. That is not to say, however, that it will not be used. Current taxpayers will have to fund whatever decision we make. There is a hole in the finances from next year. The Treasury works years ahead and the legislative framework is there. Whatever solution we come up with will have to be paid for.

Mr. Pickles: rose—

Mr. Rooker: If the hon. Gentleman wants to ask what I think he wants to ask, I probably do not have the answer.

Mr. Pickles: It might not be that. I asked specifically about proof. The Minister's predecessor made some promises about compensation for those who had suffered a loss, and made some progress on what standard of proof would be expected. What is the state of the Minister's thinking on that?
As my question is clearly not the question he feared, would he also answer whatever it was he thought I was going to ask?

Mr. Rooker: That was not the question that I was expecting, so I shall not answer the hypothetical one.
I cannot go further on proof. If and when we produce regulations, we shall have to cover proof, but how can one prove that someone made a phone inquiry to the Benefits Agency eight or nine years ago? What record would there be? In addition, the massive interest of the mass media in these matters might lead the press to publish a quick checklist of what a claimant would have to say about what he had or had not done or asked when he made his phone call all those years ago. I am not saying that the mass media would encourage people to tell fibs, but one can work out what might happen. I cannot go further at present, but we will do so when regulations are introduced.
The House should give the message tonight that Parliament and the Government are working together to get things right. We apologise for leaving people in the situation in which they find themselves today.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Government amendment in lieu of the Lords amendment and consequential Government amendment agreed to.

Clause 1

MEANING OF "STAKEHOLDER PENSION SCHEME"

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 1, line 20, leave out
("or section 176 of the Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993")

Mr. Rooker: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 16, 83, 89 and 97 to 101.

Mr. Rooker: The Government disagree with Lords amendment No. 3. We agree with the others.
I am not sure what issues the House may wish me to discuss in relation to these amendments. The key issue is probably the purchase of annuities before the age of 75, a matter on which the other place spent some time. I shall concentrate on that matter, but, given the constraints of the guillotine, I shall be happy to deal with any points to do with the other amendments, some of which are technical. I hope that the House will be able to make quick progress so that we may move on to deal with bankruptcy, war widows, pension sharing and bereavement allowances before the guillotine comes down.
Lords amendment No. 3 removed the need for annuity purchase under a stakeholder pension scheme. I hate to say so, because when in opposition I always used to think that it was a lame excuse, but we disagree with the amendment because it is technically flawed. Tax legislation requiring annuity purchase before 75 is unaffected by Lords amendment No. 3. There is no mechanism by which a member can draw benefits beyond the age of 75 from a tax-approved pension scheme or stakeholder scheme other than through an annuity purchased before he or she has reached that age. The amendment refers to the wrong area of the law. Nevertheless, I sense the mood of the House. During one of my brief visits to the House of Lords during the passage of the Bill, the noble Lords were discussing this very point.
The primary purpose of a pension scheme is to provide a secure income in retirement. Valuable tax privileges are accorded to pension arrangements. The grand total of tax relief—which is essentially the Government's contribution to pension schemes in this country—stands at £11 billion a year. That is the Government's contribution to the pension scheme kitty and it makes the general public value saving for a pension. [Interruption.] I do not agree with the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), who can make his point from the Opposition Front Bench. These valuable tax privileges are not available to people who are not contributing to pension schemes.

Mr. Willetts: The Minister refers to "valuable tax privileges". Contributions to people's pensions are, admittedly, tax exempt as they come from pre-tax income. However, that income is taxed on receipt—the right point at which to tax it, since any other arrangement would lead to double taxation. The regime is perfectly fair and symmetrical; it is not a special tax break.

Mr. Rooker: One reason why it is tax free is that the income stream is taxed. I do not seek to hide the fact that a balance is struck during a person's lifetime. However, the tax reliefs are conditional on the fund being used for pensions. That is the key issue.
Annuities provide a reliable lifelong income. There have been many debates about annuities, and I will share with the House an article about annuities that I read the other day—I have read a considerable amount about annuities in the past three months. I refer hon. Members to an excellent report from the Association of Unit Trusts and Investment Funds written by my friend and one-time colleague in this place, Dr Oonagh McDonald. I have met Oonagh to discuss the matter—I know that she has also talked to the Treasury—and she makes a valuable contribution to the debate. One paragraph caught my eye recently. It states:
Imagine the scene: a man in a sharp suit asks you to save regular amounts for 30 years so that you can build up a nice big pot of money for your retirement. It sounds hugely sensible, so you follow his advice. But when you retire he insists that you give him all of the lump sum you have saved. You get back a very small part of your savings, he pockets the rest and pays you a pitifully low income to compensate. When you die, he keeps the pot of money for himself and your family gets nothing.
That quote comes from the first paragraph on page 49 of the September 1999 edition of Sainsbury's magazine. The article is headlined "Twilight Robbery", and it was drawn to my attention by a family member who said, "You've been talking about annuities and reading up about them, so you had better read this".
You will be pleased to know that I am not about to launch into a general debate about annuities, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, many questions must be asked about that system. The fact remains that there is an age limit of 75. When I first came to the Department, I asked naively, "If a person finishes work at 65, what does he or she live on until age 75?" I was told that such people would have capital or other investments. I do not claim that it is about fat cats and the rich only; this is a serious issue about people's future pension provision and I intend to consider it seriously during my time with the Department. In the meantime, I ask the House to assist me in reversing the Lords amendment regarding stakeholder pension schemes.
I have read—and people have argued—that annuities are a bad deal. That is what the paragraph I quoted implies, but it is not necessarily always the case. Current annuity rates are somewhat less than their previous levels. However, if we can assure the public that we are entering a period of long-term low inflation, the purchasing power of annuities will be maintained far better than occurred during the 1970s and 1980s when there was fairly high inflation under Governments of both political persuasions. Inflation reached 16 per cent. or so under the previous Government and—before anyone corrects me-25 per cent. under the previous Labour Government. It is best to get such matters out of the way at the start. If there is a period of long-term, reliable, low inflation, annuities will maintain their purchasing power far better.
The income draw-down facility provides some flexibility for those who wish to defer annuity purchases. The danger is—this is not a nanny state—that, if income draw-down increases with age, the pot might be dissipated, leaving no money and recourse to state funds. That is why there is an age limit of 75: people are forced to acquire a secure income for the rest of their lives.
We continue to monitor the position. The Inland Revenue is engaged in an exercise to assess how the income draw-down arrangements are working in practice, and Dr. McDonald's contribution in that regard has been

extremely helpful to the Government. We will assess in the round whether there is a need to change the rules on income draw-down in light of the current exercise.
At this stage, however, bearing in mind that the Bill introduces the new stakeholder pensions, it would be wholly premature to make that change only for stakeholder pensions. As I said, the amendment is, in any event, defective. The change would bring about two sets of rules for different money purchase schemes, and I therefore ask the House to disagree with Lords amendment No. 3. If necessary, I will be happy to explain our position on any of the other amendments.

Dr. Lewis Moonie: I did not expect to speak quite so early in the debate, so I am all the more grateful to you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be pleased to know that I do not intend to oppose him on Lords amendment No. 3—I note the look of relief on his face—but I want to speak briefly in favour of the important principle enshrined in the amendment, and I urge him to take careful note of that principle.
My hon. Friend said that the money from a pension scheme must be used to fund a pension. To be exact, in this country the money from a pension scheme must be used to fund a pension by the purchase of an annuity. That is not the case in other countries. There are plenty of examples available, and it is not beyond the wit of this country to devise alternative methods of providing for secure income draw-down so that funds are not dissipated by wasteful excess and people are not a burden on the state in later life. I know that the Minister and his Department are sympathetic to the idea of reform, and in the Inland Revenue there is at least now the will to make that change, however defective amendment No. 3 may be.
I want to draw the Minister's attention in particular to the position of thousands of members of the Christian Brethren in this country who are debarred, by their sincerely held beliefs, from taking out an annuity. What recourse do they have? They cannot receive the tax advantages that everybody else receives by saving for a pension, because they cannot take out an annuity. They do not believe in doing that because it is a gamble on their life. Those people work hard, pay their taxes, and honour their duty to the Government and the country, but they are given rights inferior to those that the rest of us have to provide for old age.
That position is grossly unfair, and the fact that it applies only to a minority of people in this country does not alter the fact that they are being discriminated against. I therefore urge the Minister to consider their case sympathetically and to add his voice to the clamour that is now arising in the press for the annuity system to be made much fairer.

Mr. Michael Trend: If amendment No. 3, which was introduced in the Lords by the Government, is defective, I wonder whether amendment (a) in my name is doubly defective. However, I shall seek to persuade the Minister that the age-75 rule should be abolished for all money purchase pensions, and not only stakeholder pensions, as the Lords amendment suggests.
I was pleased to hear the Minister mention Dr. Oonagh McDonald, because her report agrees with that view. The campaign that has been led in this House by my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), which has received considerable press attention, has highlighted the difficult position faced by people who are coming up to age 75, when they will be forced to take out an annuity.
The House knows that our amendment seeks to abolish the rule whereby those with money purchase pension schemes are obliged to convert their savings at age 75, and Lords amendment No. 3 would abolish that rule solely for stakeholder pensions. We have campaigned for some time for the extension of that change to all money purchase schemes. Such a change would not break new ground. In 1995, the previous Government raised from 65 to 75 the age at which an annuity had to be taken out. We believe that the policy should be developed and the age-75 rule abolished.
The Minister made the good point that we would not want pension pots to be whittled down to the point at which people were forced to rely on state assistance, and I am happy for there to remain a requirement to ensure that nobody deliberately spends, spends, spends and becomes a burden on the taxpayer. However, that would be extremely unlikely because the people whom we are discussing are almost by definition some of the most responsible and conscientious in the country and of all levels of wealth. They will have forgone some of the pleasures of life to save for old age, and they are highly unlikely to break the habit of a lifetime in retirement.
Those coming up to the moment in their life when annuities must be purchased face a bleaker prospect than they have for some time. Owing to plummeting annuity rates and to the famine of long-term gilts, a person annuitising a pension scheme in the recent past could expect roughly half the income that would have been commonplace a few years ago. Once one has struck a deal on an annuity, it is for life; and if interest rates change and prospects for annuities get better, people will feel that they have had a very rough deal.
People are living longer. Naturally, those who are today buying into a low income as a reward for lifetime saving feel aggrieved. I have received letters from many constituents on the subject, as, I am sure, have all hon. Members. It seems only just to allow people the prospect of waiting a little longer and seeing whether they can get a slightly better deal later. Yes, we want people to have a secure income in old age. We are saying that they should be given greater flexibility as to the moment when they secure it. I urge the Government to treat the problem with great attention.
The Minister forbore to mention the review that he has up his sleeve—which is the usual response to our arguments in debates on the subject—and to suggest that the matter was being dealt with. However, with every week that passes, more and more people fall into the tough trap that is the 75-year rule. Once they have fallen into it, they have fallen into it for good.
I wonder what effect the current bad publicity about the annuity question might be having on stakeholder pensions. They are money purchase schemes, and the reputation of all money purchase schemes is surely

tarnished to some extent if there are serious problems over the expected returns of annuities, as there are at the moment.
I agree with the Minister on one point. This is not an attack an annuities. They remain popular. They are reliable, and there are now many different ways in which one may take out one's annuity; but the 75-year rule is causing distress, and should go. I know that the Minister is looking at other ways—there are many—in which to increase flexibility, but the 75-year rule is causing more distress than anything else.
Owing to the extraordinary way in which we are doing business tonight, I shall not seek to divide the House on this matter, important though it is; but the Government should be in no doubt that this is a battle to which we shall return again and again.

Mr. Webb: I shall not detain the House long. I simply support the spirit of Lords amendment No. 3, while accepting what the Minister says about its technical deficiencies. The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) is right to cite his hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), who has pursued the issue doggedly. Some months ago, he took part in an Adjournment debate that I initiated on the subject—a full 90-minute orgy of discussion on annuities. It was a memorable way of spending a morning.
I was interested in the comments of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie). I, too, have been approached by Christian Brethren who are worried about this issue. Although one might argue with their interpretation of scripture, it is a sincerely held belief, and it would be unfortunate if Government policy forced them into something against their will or precluded them from making sensible pension choices. I echo what the hon. Gentleman said on that point.
The pensions Minister has mentioned several times that he is relatively new in his post. He seems to have acquired the desirable qualities of his previous boss: the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has a knack of disarming his critics by agreeing with them. Now that we have got through the fevered atmosphere of the debate leading up to 7 o'clock, the pensions Minister has agreed with us twice in the past hour, much to our surprise and encouragement. We were encouraged by what he said on the state earnings-related pension scheme. I hope that I do not misrepresent him when I say that it is encouraging that he appears so open-minded on the 75-year rule.
There appear to be only two objections to relaxing that rule. One is that people might become a burden on the state. There are plenty of ways to safeguard against that. The other is that such flexibility could be used as a form of tax avoidance. Rules already exist about the taxation of pots of money passed on to dependants, and surely those rules could be tightened. Although the Minister's predecessor argued against my case in an Adjournment debate six months ago, that was necessary because that was the Government line then. I sense that it may not be for much longer, and welcome that development.

Mr. Cousins: I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie).
This debate may ultimately prove to be one of the most important and significant in welfare reform. Although I take the point of Opposition Members about the general


nature of money purchase schemes, it is of particular meaning to raise the issue in the context of stakeholder pensions, which will extend the money purchase principle to new categories of savers who might be ill prepared and much more poorly advised than many of those who are currently taking out money purchase schemes over long periods. This is an opportunity to rethink the issue.
Some of the short-term measures that could be advised, such as extending the date on which annuities need to be taken out, could be considered. Looking at income draw-down might be another possibility. However, for people who may have very small pension savings pots, the income draw-down route could be quite dangerous and risky. We must consider a new kind of savings instrument that might combine some of the benefits of individual savings accounts with those of stakeholder pensions, allow flexibility between the two, and possibly in future also take into consideration the Government's proposals on long-term care. In short, there must be something rather more like an American 401K plan than the present money purchase schemes that current British tax law allow.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider the matter and that proposals will be made so that stakeholder pensions, from the very beginning, will have new characteristics that are free of some of the rigidities of money purchase schemes, which small savers cannot afford.

Mr. Flight: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) and the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) for their kind comments.
Now that we have a Minister responsible for pensions who is full of such common sense, I urge him to spend more time with Dr. Oonagh McDonald and to hasten the Government's addressing of the issue. I shall cover three key points.
First, the annuity is mostly taken out as a guaranteed annuity, which must invest in gilts. People are now retired for a long time. Even if a pension were drawn at age 75, it is quite likely that one partner would live for another 15 to 20 years. Any investment adviser who recommended putting all one's money in gilts for a 20-year investment would be done by the Financial Services Authority for bad advice. That is exactly what the guaranteed annuity does. It is simply not the right investment medium for a pot of capital—albeit one that is being run down—that is needed to provide an income over 15 to 20 years.
The second crucial point is that stakeholder pensions—assuming that they get off the ground—will greatly increase the volume of money purchase pensions that are building up. The guaranteed annuity depends on adequate gilts to operate at all. If we are to have continuing fiscal virtue and Government surpluses—or at least no Government deficits—where on earth will those new long gilts come from?
The Minister may have seen advice to the Government to fund themselves less at the long end in order to save money. If there is rising demand and nil new supply, or even a reduction in supply, it is not surprising that real interest rates at the long end fall, not just nominal ones. A great increase in money purchase pensions and a balanced budget just do not make sense from an investment point of view.
My third point is one that Dr. Oonagh McDonald has made very strongly. It may be a no-brainer for those with generous money purchase provision to limit what has to be an annuity to an amount such that they would never need to prevail on the state. The many people who need to be freed, particularly hundreds of thousands of women, are those who may have £30,000 or £40,000 in a pension scheme and may build up no more than that in today's money in a stakeholder scheme. I find it patronising to suggest that they will do better with a paltry annuity that they are forced to buy than they would by looking after the capital themselves. They will look after it much better. It will be the great nest egg for them against old age and nursing homes.
I conclude by asking the Minister to get stuck into the subject and to come up with changes quickly. The subject has been well aired and most of the arguments have been won in most forums. I am sure that Dr. Oonagh McDonald will be able to fill him in with any details that he requires.

9 pm

Mr. Rooker: Hon. Members commented on the requirement to purchase annuities by the age of 75. I always have an open approach—I even had one before 7 pm, so I have not changed my attitude. The age of 75 struck a balance at the time when it was chosen. I have already said that the Inland Revenue has the matter under review, in the time-honoured phrase.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) made an important point. Although private pension arrangements are voluntary and one does not have to enter into them, some private pension arrangements are perceived to be a gamble on one's life, so that people of a certain religious disposition are prevented from entering into them.
I am not fully assured that there are pension arrangements suitable for such people, whereby they would still obtain the benefit of the tax advantages. It is no good suggesting that they put their money in a building society. It is possible that new financial savings vehicles that are available, such as ISAs, would be suitable. I could have suggested PEPs, but those are no longer. If one is saving for a pension, one must know that the system will continue to exist for many decades, while one builds up a pot.
The matter had not been drawn to my attention until my hon. Friend recently raised it with me privately. I shall be happy to look into it. I am taking on extra burdens every half an hour as I speak, but these are important issues and it is the Government's job to find a solution. That is what government is about. We shall try to do that.
If my hon. Friend wants to come and see me or writes to me with the details, I shall get the Department of Social Security and the Treasury to look into the matter with regard to people of a certain religious disposition who cannot take up existing schemes, although I need to be reassured that suitable schemes are available.
The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) mentioned the bad publicity, which could cause problems. We must get the legislation on the statute book for stakeholder pensions and ensure that the Government do their job of advertising, selling and educating, while the industry promotes particular schemes to a population whom, by and large, the pensions industry has passed by on the other side of the road. People with moderate earnings of


£9,000 to £20,000—the target group—may only remember headlines about mis-selling and misinformation, so it is important that such schemes are not affected by a bad press.
That point was made also by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight). I pay tribute to the efforts that he and others have made. As a late incomer, I claim no credit for the debate. That is a result of our system of government. I have picked up the fact that an important issue is involved, arising from the Government's legislation for stakeholder pensions. There is a target group of 5 million people who, by and large, in view of their salaries, are not big savers. We have to create a system to sell them the concept of a money purchase pension scheme, which is something those people would never have contemplated previously, so the Government are obliged to get it right. We have to change the target group's perception, because we want to get as many of them as possible into stakeholder schemes as soon as possible. At the same time, we have to be careful of knock-on effects on the rest of the industry—we do not want bad publicity blowing up around specific problems with money purchase schemes to undermine stakeholder pensions.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) said, it is important to be flexible. To the extent that I am allowed an open mind as a Minister, I have one. I have already said that I am making my own inquiries and asking my own questions. The issue did not come from the Box, but arose from debates in the House of Lords and from Dr. McDonald's contacting my predecessor. I shall be happy to take the matter further. That being so, and knowing that the issue will not go away, I trust that the House will agree, in this interim period, to reject Lords amendment No. 3.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 3 disagreed to.

Lords amendment Nos. 4 to 16 agreed to.

Clause 9

MONITORING OF EMPLOYERS' PAYMENTS TO PERSONAL PENSION SCHEMES

Lords amendment: No. 17, in page 21, line 10, leave out ("debtor's")

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 18, 19, 82, 102 and 163 to 175.

Mr. Bayley: In view of the time constraints, I shall be brief. To set out the background, the Bill provides that, in the event of bankruptcy, pension rights in a tax-approved pension scheme will be protected from seizure by the trustee in bankruptcy. However, to prevent people from using pensions deliberately to put money beyond the reach of creditors, a mechanism is needed to allow the courts to order recovery of excessive contributions. In deciding whether contributions were excessive, courts

will have to consider whether the person's creditors have been unfairly prejudiced by the making of contributions and, in particular, whether any of the contributions were made for the purpose of putting assets beyond the reach of creditors and whether the total amount of contributions was excessive, in view of the bankrupt's circumstances at the time they were made.
The Lords amendments deal with the interaction of two provisions in the Bill: the pension entitlement on bankruptcy and pension splitting on divorce. The amendments do three things. First, they insert provisions for dealing with the recovery of excessive contributions in Scottish cases where the bankrupt's pension rights have been shared on divorce. Schedule 12 already contained provisions for England and Wales. Secondly, the amendments provide more detail about the way in which the provisions will work in cases where pension sharing has occurred. Thirdly, they make technical changes to clarify the drafting.
In summary, the amendments do not affect policy, but improve the way in which the measure is drafted. They are necessary to make the provisions work properly.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 18 and 19 agreed to.

New Clause

Lords amendment: No. 20, after clause 18, to insert the following new clause—War pensions for widows: entitlement—
.—(1) A widow in receipt of a widow's pension under any of the enactments mentioned in subsection (2) ("the DSS pension"), and in receipt of a pension paid under the Armed Forces Pension scheme shall on remarriage or when living together as husband and wife with a member of the opposite sex, only retain the Forces Family Pension (attributable).
(2) The enactments referred to in subsection (1) are—

(a) the Naval, Military and Air Forces etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 1983, and any order re-enacting the provisions of that order,
(b) the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme 1983, and any subsequent scheme made under the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act 1939,
(c) any scheme made under the Pensions (Navy, Army, Air Force and Mercantile Marine) Act 1939 or the Polish Resettlement Act 1947 applying the provisions of any such order as is referred to in paragraph (a),
(d) the order made under section 1(5) of the Ulster Defence Regiment Act 1969 concerning pensions and other grants in respect of disablement or death due to service in the Ulster Defence Regiment."

Mr. Rooker: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment relates to the situation of war widows. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who leads on these issues, has asked me to put the case to the House, and I hope that hon. Members will find that acceptable. We recognise, as everyone does, the importance of ensuring that the dependants of those who are killed as a result of their service careers are properly looked after. The Government greatly value the contribution that those people have made for their country.
Amendment No. 20 seeks to retain for life a widow's attributable pension awarded under the Ministry of Defence's armed forces pension scheme. It would not affect payments under the DSS war pension scheme. Such pensions would continue to be withdrawn if the widow remarried or cohabited with a man, as would pensions paid to widows under the MOD's occupational pension scheme if their spouse's death was not attributable to service. It is quite a narrow amendment.
Introducing special arrangements for widows who receive the attributable pension would be anomalous, and might be seen as unfair by other service widows, because that would ring-fence that particular group of widows. That may be stating the obvious, but it is important to put it on the record. Other public service widows may also think it unfair. Under the schemes for the emergency services—the police and the fire service, in which men and women put their lives at risk during their public duty—occupational pensions are withdrawn on remarriage or cohabitation. We could create a festering sore among widows in many walks of life, and we do not think that that is the way to go.
The Government have had to consider the implications of the amendment for all public service schemes. It cannot be treated in isolation. Making widows pensions available for life would be very costly if applied across the public service as a whole. However, the Secretary of State for Defence is conducting a major review of the armed forces pension scheme. As a new Government, we are entitled to review these issues. Widows pensions are being examined as part of that review, including the issue of withdrawal on remarriage. We expect the report by next summer—we have put a target date on it: it will not get lost in the ether—and I cannot speculate about the outcome of that review.
The concerns expressed in the other place, which will be reiterated here, are fully understood and are not dismissed lightly. I cannot say more than that, because this is a sensitive issue. I will not go over the arguments about the reference in the amendment to the armed forces pension scheme. There are three different schemes, and the amendment affects only those widows in receipt of an attributable pension: it does not cover all service widows.
It would be premature to make a decision on this matter now without the benefit of the in-depth inquiry and review that is taking place to enable the House to come to a conclusion. The review will enable us to take into account the effect on other widows in other services.

Dr. George Turner: I understand that the review is already behind schedule, as is common with such matters. If cases arise between the time when the review was launched and the decisions it makes, will the Minister consider any difficult individual cases, or will that be within the ambit of the review body?

Mr. Rooker: I am not sure of the details of why the process has been delayed, but, according to the best information I have, the review is being conducted and a report is due by next summer. I do not know what the original timetable was or the reason for the delay, but I think that the House would be wise to await the results of the review before legislating, so that we can take into

account service widows whose pensions are not attributable and, perhaps, other public sector widows in the circumstances that I have described.

Mr. Trend: The Opposition agree with the Lords amendment. Those who follow these matters in detail will realise that it represents a change in our policy—indeed, a change since the proposal was debated, very recently, in another place. I am quietly proud to be able to tell the House of that change, but well aware that mere good fortune has enabled me to voice what many Conservatives, on both Front and Back Benches, have for so long felt to be right and thoughtful. This is an issue that commands support throughout the House; it has only ever been a problem for Front-Bench Members, and it is now only a problem for Ministers.
The Government will have been told by civil servants—as we were when we were in government—that to concede this point will be to open the floodgates. That is what the Minister told us today. The Government may even have been persuaded to accept the red herring that some 68,000 widows are involved in the proposal. Both claims are simply untrue. It would be entirely possible to accept this modest proposal, strictly ring-fenced to post-1973 war widows, without further repercussions, and we are assured that there is no technical or legal reason why that could not be done. The Government are quite able to put their powerful shoulders against all sorts of floodgates if they are determined to do so; what is unfair in this instance is that a small group of people are unjustly on the wrong side of the Government's stubbornness.
I suspect that, when the phrase "war widows" is used in this context, most people conjure up a picture of women getting on in years whose husbands fought courageously in the second world war. That is far from the truth of what we are talking about. We are talking specifically about post-1973 war widows, and the total number of people in that group—those in receipt of attributable armed forces family pensions—is thought to be 2,650. At present, along with the AFFP, they receive DSS war widows pensions; if they remarry, they lose both.
The widows in question, ably represented by the War Widows Association of Great Britain—believe that to be grossly unfair, and a serious and understandable disincentive for them to remarry. Under the Government's current proposals for pension splitting on divorce, those women would be able to retain a share in their former husbands' occupational pension schemes, which is what the AFFP is; but the Government say that those who are separated from their spouses by death must lose both their DSS and their MOD occupational pensions if they remarry. That is a monstrous injustice. The great majority of private pension schemes, and an increasing number of public pension schemes, now pay bereaved spouses pensions for life, and it is surely a good thing for pension schemes to be regarded increasingly as the assets and the property of individuals rather than as a handout from a grudging Government.
The armed forces are different from any and all other public services. Service men and women are the only group in our society who are asked as a condition of their work to be ready to lay down their lives for the rest of us. They are not paid overtime; they cannot join a trade union; their contracts are totally different from contracts in the other public services. Their wives and families are


posted anywhere throughout the globe. It is impossible for service men's wives to take up careers of their own. I know that from personal experience, as I represent Windsor, a town with two barracks.
In fact, 806 of those widows are under 50 and 1,542 are under 60. It is not an enormous problem for the Government. Young women are involved, too. In particular, it is the children who suffer from the injustice of their late father's occupational pension being stopped if their mother remarries.
Recently, a large group of young children went to Downing street, where they were courteously received by the Prime Minister. Who could fail to be struck by the predicament in which those families find themselves? I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman was. I ask the Minister to consider accepting the amendment, even at this late stage.
We are talking specifically about post-1973 widows of service men who die, or are killed in the line of duty while still serving. Only about 2,500 individual cases are involved. A tough ring fence will be placed around that group of people.
Those who choose to remarry—it may be only a modest number—will, of course, stop receiving their Department of Social Security pensions, thereby allowing, I guess, the proposal roughly to pay for itself. We are talking about a tiny step for the Government, but a giant leap forward for war widows. It is an issue of simple human decency and justice.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I wanted to speak on the issue to show that, on the Labour Benches, there are some concerns about the matter and that there is some sympathy for the view of the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend).
I accept that a review will take place. Much will depend on how seriously the matter is taken in that review. Obviously, what has been discussed in another place and here is relevant material, which the review should examine. The arguments have been put forward clearly.
The Minister said, "Why should the Army, Navy and Air Force be different from other public services?" The hon. Member for Windsor has responded to some of those points. I reiterate them a little and add some more.
Life in the forces is different from that in many other sectors. Many people place themselves in considerable danger in other public services—we are aware of that—but people serving in Kosovo and Northern Ireland face death continually. That may not be the case in other public services, although some terrible incidents occur in those services. However, as people in the forces face the problem day by day, some special consideration should be given.
The position of widows needs to be taken into account. They cannot develop careers readily and easily to provide for themselves later in life because of the nature of the service in which they are involved. They may move a dozen or more times during their life married to someone in the services, and will not have had an opportunity to build a stable career. They might even have great difficulty in finding employment in the areas to which they move. Often, life in the services is such that they

will be expected to be involved in many unpaid activities around the camps, providing welfare services. They assist their husband's career, so theirs is a special case, which needs to be looked at. Many of the arguments that have been presented by the War Widows Association of Great Britain make those points. We should consider them seriously.
Whatever happens in the Divisions, I hope that the Government will take the matter on board seriously. I hope that they will not say just that the review can consider the matter. The review must take the matter seriously into account and issue a quick report that is based on the principles that have been discussed tonight.

Mr. David Heath: The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) said that he was very proud that the Conservative party had changed its position on the matter since discussions were held in another place. I am very proud that the Liberal Democrats have not changed our position, and that we have been entirely consistent in our support for the Lords amendment. I very much hope that we shall have the opportunity to demonstrate that support at the end of the debate.
As has been said, we are talking about an anomaly—a fairly small anomaly affecting relatively few people. It is also a matter that we very rarely have the opportunity to debate, simply because it falls within the province of the Ministry of Defence and prerogative powers. This debate is one of the rare opportunities that we have had to explore the case on behalf of post-1973 war widows.
The current regulations are quintessentially archaic, as they treat the woman—the surviving spouse is usually a woman, but could be either gender—as a chattel and as someone who is dependent on their relationship with a partner, rather than as an independent person who has contributed equally to a partnership that has ended in the most tragic circumstances, in a death in service.
Yesterday, some of us were privileged to hear a lucid and extremely helpful briefing on the subject, and I was particularly struck by one statement made by the lady who gave the briefing. She said that the only real options available to a young war widow who wishes to retain the pension are to be single, celibate, promiscuous or homosexual. If she wants to preserve her pension entitlement on behalf of her family, the one thing that she cannot have is a stable relationship.
There are essentially three elements to the Government's position. The first is cost—which has already been dealt with by the hon. Member for Windsor. Implementing the change would not be a costly exercise. Indeed, a perfectly logical argument maintains that the Government would find themselves rather better off with the change.
The effects of precedent are the second element of the Government's position. However, I reject that argument, too. I do not believe that changing the provision for approximately 2,650 individuals will necessitate changes in other parts of the public service, or that there will be any clamour for such change.
The third element is the fact that a review is in process, and the Government maintain that we must await its completion. I reject that, too. This is an opportunity to correct a wrong that has continued for far too long.


Children are being been deprived of the opportunity to grow up in what should be stable families simply because of pension rules.
We have the opportunity not only to be fair to those widows, but to improve the terms of service of those serving in our armed services. Hon. Members who participate in defence debates will know how difficult it is to recruit and retain people in the services, but, today, we have the opportunity to make a significant change for the better.
Most of all, we should support those young wives and families who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in the most tragic circumstances, deprived of a partner.
The issue is not concerned only with the past—it arises every year. Every year, young people in our armed services are losing their lives in service. Often, they leave behind young spouses and families. The House would do well to reflect on that fact, and to take a rare opportunity to put right a rather small anomaly.

Mr. Dalyell: Given that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is almost certainly anecdotally right in suggesting that there is a built-in financial disincentive either to marriage or to a stable relationship, I simply ask Ministers what advice they have had from their departmental experts on the costs if the Lords amendment were passed.

Mr. Rooker: I am all for giving as much information as possible. On its own, the amendment would cost the Ministry of Defence less than £15 million annually.

Mr. Dalyell: That was the factual answer that I wanted. I thank the Minister.

Mr. Brazier: The school that I attended was set up for the sons of dead Army officers. The foundation for the sons of deceased service personnel continues to this day and there were several such children at school with me.
I should like to add two points to the excellent speeches that have been made already. First, it is a sad fact that today 40 per cent. of marriages end in divorce. It is a further sad fact that if one of the parties to the marriage comes in with children from a previous marriage, whether as a widow or as a divorcee, the chances of a divorce are even greater. If a member of the armed forces with children dies in action and his widow chooses to remarry, giving their children another father, she puts those children at serious financial risk. We must be clear about that.
I do not want to repeat the arguments that have been put so well already. My second point is that every hon. Member present tonight should ask themselves what sort of message we are sending to members of the armed forces, who risk their lives for us in so many uncomfortable and dangerous parts of the world, if we tell them that we are determined once again to save a relatively small sum of money by putting their widows and children in such a position if anything should happen to them.

Dr. George Turner: I shall be brief. I am willing to accept that this may not be the moment, but at some point

we must take a positive attitude to try to find a way round the difficulties that seem to have prevented natural justice from being done for constituents who have written to me.
Many Labour Members cannot support the attitudes, particularly to young women, that we have inherited. People should not be discouraged from entering into new relationships by a financial penalty, particularly if there are young children. I accept the need to consider small cases in the round to ensure that we do not create one anomaly after another. I should like some reassurance that the Government will take a positive look at the issue and that the House will return to it before too long.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: This is an opportunity to make a small gesture for war widows. The Minister has told us that the cost to the Ministry of Defence would be £15 million. What would the saving be to the Department of Social Security, caused by the widows surrendering their DSS pension when they got married? Let us have some joined-up government. I want to know the net cost to the Government, not just the cost to the Ministry of Defence.
I should like to illustrate one of the manifest absurdities of the situation. Consider two identical families in the services. We are introducing pension splitting on divorce. The wife of one service man chooses to get divorced. She will get her share of the pension and can go on to remarry as many times as she likes—as my noble Friend Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish said, consecutively, not concurrently. However, if the other service man flies his aircraft into the side of a mountain or gets killed on active service in Kosovo or while training for active service and his wife chooses to remarry, she will have to surrender her pension. That is a manifest absurdity that we can put right this evening.
We have heard the Government's arguments about the difficulty of drawing a line, and the fact that 68,000 other service widows would feel aggrieved. I do not believe that to be the case. We have an opportunity to move the line microscopically. Enough is enough. The issue has been reviewed to death. It is time for the House to make a move. I do not know how Members of Parliament can sit here wearing their poppies, remembering the sacrifice of those who gave their lives, and then pass up an opportunity to make a minute gesture to help the widows and children of those who made a sacrifice for their country to rebuild their lives as they would wish. We should agree with their lordships.

Mr. Rooker: I welcome all the contributions to this brief debate, and a powerful case for change has been made. I do not mean this in a demeaning way, but the case is so powerful that the Opposition have changed their policy, and announced that this evening. I respect that, and I presume that it was not done lightly. We are entitled to give the matter some thought, and one cannot demean the Ministry of Defence's review.
I can assure everyone that I will metaphorically hotfoot it from this debate to the MOD to say what has been said here and in the other place, and ensure that that is properly addressed in the review.
To expand on my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), the amendment on its own would cost the MOD less than £15 million a year extra. That £15 million would cover the cost of paying all


service widows pensions for life, irrespective of whether the service was attributable or not. [Interruption.] I do not have a breakdown of the figures—my point is that the figure that I gave is larger than the figure for attributable service. However, one must balance that.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said that there would be no clamour from any other quarter. However, we live in the real world, and there will be clamour from other quarters. I am not saying that that is a reason not to make the change.
If similar pressure was put on the other public sector pension schemes to pay widows pensions for life, the total cost across the public sector for lifetime spouses' pensions would be roughly £150 million for each year of future service.
If the change was made retrospective to cover all past service for current serving employees, the capital cost for the public service pensions schemes would be approximately £1.5 billion. If it included those who had been awarded a preserved pension, that would double to £3 billion. I am putting those figures on record so the House has all the information that I have.

Mr. Robert Key: We are grateful for the Minister's positive attitude. One point that has not been made about comparability is that the fire service and the police service have a provision for a gratuity on death in service which does not exist in this case. That is yet another reason for saying that this can be tightly ring fenced.

Mr. Rooker: Yes, and the review must look at this matter. The MOD is duty bound to come forward with the results of the review, in which the war widows association is playing a leading role. These points must be made to the satisfaction of all the Departments involved. There will be a clamour, and we must try to provide a secure ring fence.
There is no saving to the DSS, as the DSS war widows pension is withdrawn on remarriage. We are talking about attributable service, covering the DSS war pension scheme. That is not part of the amendment, which relates to the MOD schemes. It is a separate issue.

Mr. Barnes: There might be a slight saving in the DSS pension provision if more women were able to marry because of the removal of the constraint.

Mr. Rooker: I do not want to disagree with my hon. Friend, but the Lords amendment is specific to the MOD scheme. In response to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key): there is a gratuity in the armed forces pension scheme, which comprises three separate elements—I do not want to get into the details of the technical defects arising from that fact.

Mr. David Heath: The Minister is doing a good job of acknowledging the strength of feeling in the House and perhaps communicating it to other quarters, but I must press him again on the idea that there is no saving to the DSS. Logic suggests that if women remarry and therefore qualify for the change in the attributable forces family pension scheme, which is the substance of the Lords

amendment, they must forgo the DSS pension that they would otherwise have been claiming. That is a countervailing saving.

Mr. Rooker: That happens already. The hon. Gentleman is effectively saying that to the extent that more widows would remarry because of the attributable MOD pension being kept for life, the DSS would make a saving. I cannot possibly give an answer to that hypothetical question. It would be preposterous for me to try to estimate how many widows would remarry because, and only because, there was a change in the MOD scheme. The only answer that I can give is that the saving to the DSS would depend on the numbers.

Mr. Blunt: Where does the £15 million come from if it is not based on an estimate that could equally be used for the DSS figure?
I commend to the Minister the words of Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, who was trying to deal with the issue in the DSS. When challenged on why he did not do anything about it, he said:
That is a perfectly fair point. I did try—it is my only defence—but not very successfully. I sent letters to my noble Friend Lord Howe. I chased my civil servants across to the MoD. My noble Friend Lord Howe and I totally"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with quoting at such length in an intervention.

Mr. Rooker: Perhaps I have answered the debate inadequately. The point is that the MOD can be precise about what the cost to its budget of paying widows for the whole of their lives would be, because it knows how many of them are being paid its attributable pension. One cannot know the change in behaviour that would come about if the policy were extended to other budgets.
The MOD can give a precise figure that covered all service widows, because it is paying them now, but it is not possible to put a figure on the knock-on effect on the DSS and our thousands of different benefits, which have all grown like Topsy over the years.
The Government have got the message both from this debate and from the one in the other place. I ask right hon. and hon. Members to trust to the review; to put the maximum pressure on the MOD so that there is no undue delay; and to ensure—I give my commitment to this as a DSS Minister—that I make urgent representations to my right hon. Friend as a result of what has been said tonight. In that spirit, I ask the House to accept the Government's motion to disagree with the Lords amendment.

Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 363, Noes 193.

Division No. 285]
[9.44 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary


Ainger, Nick
Atherton, Ms Candy


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Atkins, Charlotte


Alexander, Douglas
Austin, John


Allen, Graham
Banks, Tony


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Barron, Kevin


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Battle, John






Bayley, Hugh
Dawson, Hilton


Beard, Nigel
Denham, John


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Begg, Miss Anne
Dismore, Andrew


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Dobbin, Jim


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Donohoe, Brian H


Bennett, Andrew F
Doran, Frank


Benton, Joe
Dowd, Jim


Bermingham, Gerald
Drew, David


Berry, Roger
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Best, Harold
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Blackman, Liz
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Edwards, Huw


Blizzard, Bob
Efford, Clive


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Boateng, Paul
Ennis, Jeff


Borrow, David
Etherington, Bill


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Fisher, Mark


Bradshaw, Ben
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Flint, Caroline



Follett, Barbara


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Browne, Desmond
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Buck, Ms Karen
Foulkes, George


Burden, Richard
Galbraith, Sam


Burgon, Colin
Gapes, Mike


Butler, Mrs Christine
Gardiner, Barry


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Caplin, Ivor
Godman, Dr Norman A


Casale, Roger
Godsiff, Roger


Caton, Martin
Goggins, Paul


Cawsey, Ian
Golding, Mrs Llin


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Chaytor, David
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Church, Ms Judith
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Grocott, Bruce



Grogan, John


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Gunnell, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hain, Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clwyd, Ann
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Coaker, Vernon
Hanson, David


Coffey, Ms Ann
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Coleman, Iain
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Colman, Tony
Healey, John


Connarty, Michael
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Cooper, Yvette
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Corbett, Robin
Hepburn, Stephen


Corbyn, Jeremy
Heppell, John


Corston, Ms Jean
Hesford, Stephen


Cousins, Jim
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Cox, Tom
Hill, Keith


Cranston, Ross
Hinchliffe, David


Crausby, David
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hoey, Kate


Cummings, John
Hood, Jimmy


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Hope, Phil



Hopkins, Kelvin


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Dalyell, Tam
Howells, Dr Kim


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Hoyle, Lindsay


Darvill, Keith
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Davidson, Ian
Humble, Mrs Joan


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hurst, Alan


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Hutton, John





Iddon, Dr Brian
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Illsley, Eric
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Mountford, Kali


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Mudie, George


Jamieson, David
Mullin, Chris


Jenkins, Brian
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)



Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Norris, Dan


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
O'Hara, Eddie


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Olner, Bill


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
O'Neill, Martin


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Organ, Mrs Diana


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Keeble, Ms Sally
Palmer, Dr Nick


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Pearson, Ian


Kemp, Fraser
Pendry, Tom


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Perham, Ms Linda


Khabra, Piara S
Pickthall, Colin


Kidney, David
Pike, Peter L


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Plaskitt, James


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Pollard, Kerry


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Pond, Chris


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Pope, Greg


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Pound, Stephen


Laxton, Bob
Powell, Sir Raymond


Lepper, David
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Leslie, Christopher
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Levitt, Tom
Primarolo, Dawn


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Prosser, Gwyn


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Purchase, Ken


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Linton, Martin
Quinn, Lawrie


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Lock, David
Rammell, Bill


Love, Andrew
Rapson, Syd


McAllion, John
Raynsford, Nick


McAvoy, Thomas
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


McCabe, Steve
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Roche, Mrs Barbara


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Rooker, Jeff



Rooney, Terry


McDonagh, Siobhain
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Macdonald, Calum
Rowlands, Ted


McDonnell, John
Roy, Frank


McFall, John
Ruane, Chris


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Ruddock, Joan


McIsaac, Shona
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Ryan, Ms Joan


McNulty, Tony
Salter, Martin


MacShane, Denis
Sarwar, Mohammad


Mactaggart, Fiona
Savidge, Malcolm


McWalter, Tony
Sawford, Phil


Mallaber, Judy
Sedgemore, Brian


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Shaw, Jonathan


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Shipley, Ms Debra


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Martlew, Eric
Singh, Marsha


Maxton, John
Skinner, Dennis


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Meale, Alan
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Merron, Gillian
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan



Miller, Andrew
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Moffatt, Laura
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Snape, Peter


Moran, Ms Margaret
Soley, Clive


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Spellar, John


Morley, Elliot
Squire, Ms Rachel






Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Steinberg, Gerry
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Stevenson, George
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Tynan, Bill


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Stinchcombe, Paul
Walley, Ms Joan


Stoate, Dr Howard
Ward, Ms Claire


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Wareing, Robert N


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Watts, David


Stringer, Graham
White, Brian


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wicks, Malcolm


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wills Michael


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Wise, Audrey


Timms, Stephen
Wood, Mike


Tipping, Paddy
Woolas, Phil


Todd, Mark
Worthington, Tony


Touhig, Don
Wray, James


Trickett, Jon
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Truswell, Paul
Wyatt, Derek


Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Mr. David Clelland and


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Mr. Clive Betts.




NOES


Allan, Richard
Collins, Tim


Amess, David
Colvin, Michael


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Cotter, Brian


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cran, James


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)



Baker, Norman
Curry, Rt Hon David


Baldry, Tony
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Ballard, Jackie
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Barnes, Harry
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)


Beith, Rt Hon A J



Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Day, Stephen


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Duncan, Alan


Bercow, John
Duncan Smith, Iain


Beresford, Sir Paul
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Blunt, Crispin
Evans, Nigel


Body, Sir Richard
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Boswell, Tim
Faber, David


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Fabricant, Michael


Brady, Graham
Fearn, Ronnie


Brake, Tom
Flight, Howard


Brand, Dr Peter
Forsythe, Clifford


Brazier, Julian
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Breed, Colin
Foster, Don (Bath)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Browning, Mrs Angela
Fox, Dr Liam


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fraser, Christopher


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gale, Roger


Burnett, John
Garnier, Edward


Burns, Simon
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Burstow, Paul
Gibb, Nick


Butterfill, John
Gill, Christopher


Cable, Dr Vincent
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Gorrie, Donald



Gray, James


Canavan, Dennis
Green, Damian


Cash, William
Greenway, John


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Grieve, Dominic



Gummer, Rt Hon John


Chidgey, David
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Chope, Christopher
Hammond, Philip


Clappison, James
Hancock, Mike


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Harris, Dr Evan


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Harvey, Nick





Hawkins, Nick
Robathan, Andrew


Heald, Oliver
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Ruffley, David


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Horam, John
St Aubyn, Nick


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Sanders, Adrian


Hunter, Andrew
Sayeed, Jonathan


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Shepherd, Richard


Jenkin, Bernard
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Soames, Nicholas


Keetch, Paul
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Key, Robert
Spicer, Sir Michael


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Spring, Richard


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Kirkwood, Archy
Steen, Anthony


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Streeter, Gary


Leigh, Edward
Stunell, Andrew


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Swayne, Desmond


Lidington, David
Swinney, John


Livsey, Richard
Syms, Robert


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Llwyd, Elfyn
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Loughton, Tim
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Luff, Peter
Thompson, William


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Tonge, Dr Jenny


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Townend, John


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Tredinnick, David


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Trend, Michael



Tyler, Paul


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Tyrie, Andrew


McLoughlin, Patrick
Viggers, Peter


Madel, Sir David
Wallace, James


Maples, John
Walter, Robert


Mates, Michael
Wardle, Charles


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Waterson, Nigel


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Webb, Steve


Moore, Michael
Wells, Bowen


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Welsh, Andrew


Moss, Malcolm
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Nicholls, Patrick
Whittingdale, John


Norman, Archie
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Oaten, Mark
Willetts, David


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Willis, Phil


Öpik, Lembit
Wilshire, David


Ottaway, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Page, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Paice, James
Woodward, Shaun


Paterson, Owen
Yeo, Tim


Pickles, Eric
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Prior, David



Randall, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Mrs. Eleanor Laing and


Rendel, David
Mr. John M. Taylor.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

It being after Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour.

Clause 50

NEW ALLOWANCES FOR BEREAVED SPOUSES

Lords amendment: No. 33, in page 56, line 23, leave out ("26 weeks") and insert ("two years").

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

The House divided: Ayes 336, Noes 241.

Division No. 286]
[10.3 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Ainger, Nick
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Dalyell, Tam


Alexander, Douglas
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Allen, Graham
Darvill, Keith


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Dawson, Hilton


Banks, Tony
Denham, John


Barron, Kevin
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Battle, John
Dismore, Andrew


Bayley, Hugh
Dobbin, Jim


Beard, Nigel
Donohoe, Brian H


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Doran, Frank


Begg, Miss Anne
Dowd, Jim


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Drew, David


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Edwards, Huw


Bennett, Andrew F
Efford, Clive


Benton, Joe
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Bermingham, Gerald
Ennis, Jeff


Best, Harold
Etherington, Bill


Blackman, Liz
Fisher, Mark


Blears, Ms Hazel
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Blizzard, Bob
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Flint, Caroline


Boateng, Paul
Follett, Barbara


Borrow, David
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Bradshaw, Ben
Foulkes, George


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Galbraith, Sam


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Gapes, Mike


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Gardiner, Barry


Browne, Desmond
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Buck, Ms Karen
Gerrard, Neil


Burden, Richard
Gibson, Dr Ian


Burgon, Colin
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Butler, Mrs Christine
Godsiff, Roger


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Goggins, Paul


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Caplin, Ivor
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Casale, Roger
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cawsey, Ian
Grocott, Bruce


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Grogan, John


Chaytor, David
Gunnell, John


Church, Ms Judith
Hain, Peter


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)



Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hanson, David


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Coaker, Vernon
Healey, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Coleman, Iain
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Colman, Tony
Hepburn, Stephen


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Heppell, John


Cooper, Yvette
Hesford, Stephen


Corbett, Robin
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Corston, Ms Jean
Hill, Keith


Cranston, Ross
Hinchliffe, David


Crausby, David
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cummings, John
Hoey, Kate


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hood, Jimmy


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Hoon, Geoffrey



Hope, Phil





Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Howells, Dr Kim
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Morley, Elliot


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Mountford, Kali


Hurst, Alan
Mudie, George


Hutton, John
Mullin, Chris


Iddon, Dr Brian
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Illsley, Eric
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jamieson, David
Norris, Dan


Jenkins, Brian
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
O'Hara, Eddie



Olner, Bill


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
O'Neill, Martin


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pearson, Ian


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Pendry, Tom


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Perham, Ms Linda


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pickthall, Colin


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pike, Peter L


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Plaskitt, James


Kemp, Fraser
Pollard, Kerry


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pond, Chris


Khabra, Piara S
Pope, Greg


Kidney, David
Pound, Stephen


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Powell, Sir Raymond


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Primarolo, Dawn


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Prosser, Gwyn


Laxton, Bob
Purchase, Ken


Lepper, David
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Leslie, Christopher
Quinn, Lawrie


Levitt, Tom
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rammell, Bill


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Rapson, Syd


Linton, Martin
Raynsford, Nick


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Lock, David
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Love, Andrew
Roche, Mrs Barbara


McAvoy, Thomas
Rooker, Jeff


McCabe, Steve
Rooney, Terry


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Roy, Frank



Ruane, Chris


McDonagh, Siobhain
Ruddock, Joan


Macdonald, Calum
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McFall, John
Ryan, Ms Joan


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Salter, Martin


McIsaac, Shona
Sarwar, Mohammad


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Savidge, Malcolm


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sawford, Phil


McNulty, Tony
Shaw, Jonathan


MacShane, Denis
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mactaggart, Fiona
Shipley, Ms Debra


McWalter, Tony
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Mallaber, Judy
Singh, Marsha


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Martlew, Eric



Maxton, John
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Snape, Peter


Meale, Alan
Soley, Clive


Merron, Gillian
Southworth, Ms Helen


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Spellar, John


Miller, Andrew
Squire, Ms Rachel


Moffatt, Laura
Starkey, Dr Phyllis






Steinberg, Gerry
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Stevenson, George
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Tynan, Bill


Stinchcombe, Paul
Vis, Dr Rudi


Stoate, Dr Howard
Walley, Ms Joan


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Ward, Ms Claire


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Watts, David


Stringer, Graham
White, Brian


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Whrtehead, Dr Alan


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wicks, Malcolm


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)



Wills Michael


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Wilson, Brian


Temple-Morris, Peter
Winnick, David


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Woolas, Phil


Timms, Stephen
Worthington, Tony


Tipping, Paddy.
Wray, James


Todd, Mark
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Touhig, Don
Wyatt, Derek


Trickett, Jon



Truswell, Paul
Tellers for the Ayes:


Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Mr. Clive Betts and


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Mr. David Clelland.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Chope, Christopher


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Clappison, James


Allan, Richard
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Amess, David
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael



Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Clwyd, Ann


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Collins, Tim


Austin, John
Colvin, Michael


Baker, Norman
Connarty, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ballard, Jackie
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Barnes, Harry
Cotter, Brian


Beggs, Roy
Cousins, Jim


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cran, James


Bercow, John
Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)


Beresford, Sir Paul



Berry, Roger
Curry, Rt Hon David


Blunt, Crispin
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Body, Sir Richard
Davidson, Ian


Boswell, Tim
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia



Brady, Graham
Day, Stephen


Brake, Tom
Duncan, Alan


Brand, Dr Peter
Duncan Smith, Iain


Brazier, Julian
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Breed, Colin
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, Nigel


Browning, Mrs Angela
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Faber, David


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fabricant, Michael


Burnett, John
Fallon, Michael


Burns, Simon
Fearn, Ronnie


Burstow, Paul
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Butterfill, John
Flight, Howard


Cable, Dr Vincent
Flynn, Paul


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Forsythe, Clifford



Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Canavan, Dennis
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Cash, William
Fox, Dr Liam


Caton, Martin
Fraser, Christopher


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Gale, Roger



Garnier, Edward


Chidgey, David
George, Andrew (St Ives)





Gibb, Nick
Moss, Malcolm


Gill, Christopher
Nicholls, Patrick


Godman, Dr Norman A
Norman, Archie


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Oaten, Mark


Gorrie, Donald
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Gray, James
Öpik, Lembit


Green, Damian
Ottaway, Richard


Greenway, John
Page, Richard


Grieve, Dominic
Paice, James


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Paterson, Owen


Hague, Rt Hon William
Pickles, Eric


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Prior, David


Hammond, Philip
Randall, John


Hancock, Mike
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Harris, Dr Evan
Rendel, David


Harvey, Nick
Robathan, Andrew


Hawkins, Nick
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Heald, Oliver
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Rowlands, Ted


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Ruffley, David


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Hopkins, Kelvin
St Aubyn, Nick


Horam, John
Salmond, Alex


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Sanders, Adrian


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Hunter, Andrew
Shepherd, Richard


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Skinner, Dennis


Jenkin, Bernard
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Soames, Nicholas


Keetch, Paul
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Spicer, Sir Michael


Key, Robert
Spring, Richard


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Steen, Anthony


Kirkwood, Archy
Streeter, Gary


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Stunell, Andrew


Lansley, Andrew
Swayne, Desmond


Leigh, Edward
Swinney, John


Letwin, Oliver
Syms, Robert


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Lidington, David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Livsey, Richard
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Thompson, William


Llwyd, Elfyn
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Loughton, Tim
Townend, John


Luff, Peter
Tredinnick, David


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Trend, Michael


McAllion, John
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


McDonnell, John
Tyler, Paul


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Tyrie, Andrew


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Viggers, Peter


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Wallace, James


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Walter, Robert


McLoughlin, Patrick
Wardle, Charles


Madel, Sir David
Wareing, Robert N


Maples, John
Waterson, Nigel


Marek, Dr John
Webb, Steve


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wells, Bowen


Mates, Michael
Welsh, Andrew


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Whitney, Sir Raymond


May, Mrs Theresa
Whittingdale, John


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Wilkinson, John


Moore, Michael
Willetts, David


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Willis, Phil






Wilshire, David
Yeo, Tim


Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)



Wise, Audrey
Tellers for the Noes:


Wood, Mike
Mrs. Eleanor Laing and


Woodward, Shaun
Mr. Keith Simpson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Government amendment (a) in lieu of the Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 34 disagreed to.

Government amendment (a) in lieu thereof agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 21 to 32 agreed to.

Clause 52

WORK-FOCUSED INTERVIEWS

Lords amendment: No. 35, in page 59, line 12, leave out ("making") and insert
("who—
(i) makes")

The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Ms Tessa Jowell): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 36 to 39, 52, 59, 78, 88, 124, 125, 176, 179 and 180.

Ms Jowell: This large group of Government amendments makes two main sets of changes. First, it implements the recommendations of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. Secondly, it clarifies that all claimants have the right to appeal against, or ask for a review of, a personal adviser's decision that they have failed to take part in an interview. It also makes a minor technical change to support joined-up government in the ONE service. All those—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call for order in the House. This is a complicated set of amendments; we must listen to the Minister.

Ms Jowell: All the amendments are technical. They do not change the ONE policy in any way.
Amendments Nos. 35 to 38, 78, 88, 176 and 179 implement the recommendations of the Select Committee. Amendments Nos. 35 to 38 are intended to exclude men and women aged 60 and over from having to take part in the mandatory aspects of the ONE service. Originally, we had planned to exempt that group through regulations, although we are now happy to accept the Committee's recommendations and to include the exception in the Bill.
As state retirement age gradually equalises over the next two decades, there is likely to be a need to amend the Bill to include all claimants who are below the age of 65. In the meantime, however, men and women aged 60 and over will still voluntarily be able to access support through the ONE service.
We are also happy to accept the Committee's recommendation that the first set of regulations under the clause should be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Amendment No. 39 clarifies that the clause gives all claimants the right to launch an appeal against, or ask for a review of, a personal adviser's decision that they have failed to take part in a work-focused interview. We have consistently made it clear that, where a personal adviser makes a decision on non-participation, the claimant should be able to challenge that decision.
In addition, we have always made it clear that claimants should also have a right of appeal against a decision that they have failed to participate. However, the original drafting of the provision failed to give effect to that policy intention. For example, a claimant who received a negative decision from a local authority personal adviser would not have had recourse to the disputes resolution procedures. Local authority personal advisers would not be able to revise their own or others' decisions, even where they were clearly incorrect. The amendment corrects that, making it clear that the disputes resolution procedure and rights of appeal should apply in all cases.

Mr. Willetts: May I help the Minister? So far as I am aware, the amendments to which she is speaking are not controversial. They are accepted in all parts of the House. As we have a guillotine, I assure her that the Opposition have no problem and are satisfied with the explanation that she has offered.

Ms Jowell: I am enormously grateful for the courtesy, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like to hear the important clarification provided by amendment No. 180, ensuring that a claimant has a right of appeal against a decision that he or she has failed to take part in an interview.
Amendments Nos. 52, 59, 124 and 125 make necessary changes to support closer working. They give local authority staff working in the ONE service the same powers as the Employment Service and Benefits Agency to require jobseeker's allowance claimants to attend for interview. They also allow local authority staff to obtain the information that they need. With that explanation, I hope that the House will accept the amendments.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 36 to 39 agreed to.

Clause 55

SPECIAL SCHEMES FOR CLAIMANTS FOR JOBSEEKER'S ALLOWANCE

Lords amendment: No. 40, in page 64, line 24, at end insert—
("(5A) For the purposes of, or in connection with, a scheme established for (or for an area which includes) Wales or a part of Wales, the National Assembly for Wales may, if it considers that facilities whose provision any person (including the Secretary of State) is undertaking under arrangements within subsection (5)(a) or


(b) are capable of being supportive of the training of persons for employment, make such payments to that person as the Assembly considers appropriate; and any such payments—

(a) may be by way of fees, grants, loans or otherwise, and
(b) may, unless the Assembly otherwise specifies, be used by the person to whom they are made for the provision of any of the facilities provided under the arrangements.")

Ms Jowell: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 41.

Ms Jowell: I hope that it will be possible to deliver the short version of the speech, rather than the longer version. The principle behind the creation of employment zones is to allow for the pooling of various funding streams currently available to help long-term unemployed people. It is straightforward to pool the funding in England, but more difficult for employment zones in Wales. Without the amendment, the money that the Welsh Assembly holds for training could not be used for employment zones in Wales.
There is also a small consequential amendment involving some renumbering in clause 55 as a result of amendment No. 40. I urge the House to support the amendments.

Lords amendment agreed to [Special Entry].

Lords amendment No. 41 agreed to.

Clause 63

CERTAIN OVERPAYMENTS OF BENEFIT NOT TO BE RECOVERABLE

Lords amendment: No. 47, in page 69, line 24, leave out ("finding") and insert ("decision")

Mr. Bayley): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 48 and 49.

Mr. Bayley: These are technical amendments to clarify the power in clause 63. They do not affect the meaning of the clause and were agreed without debate in another place. I therefore commend them to the House.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 48 and 49 agreed to.

Clause 66

SHARING OF FUNCTIONS AS REGARDS CLAIMS AND INFORMATION

Lords amendment: No. 50, in page 72, line 32, at end insert—
("(3A) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different areas.

(3B) Regulations under any other enactment may make such different provision for different areas as appears to the Secretary of State expedient in connection with any exercise by regulations under this section of the power conferred by subsection (3A) above.")

Mr. Bayley: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 51, 61, 62, 126 and 178.

Mr. Bayley: These amendments ensure the effective operation of provisions to enable closer working between central and local government, an essential element of the Government's plans to provide customers with an integrated social security claims service. That requires provisions for information exchange to support integrated claiming.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 51 and 52 agreed to.

Clause 70

EARNINGS OF WORKERS SUPPLIED BY SERVICE COMPANIES ETC.

Lords amendment: No. 53, to leave out clause 70.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendments (a) to (t) related thereto, Lords amendment No. 54 and Government amendments (a) to (t) related thereto, and Lords amendments Nos. 77, 85, 86, 90, 93, 94, 128 to 140 and 184 to 191.

Mr. Timms: The amendments restore to the Bill the clauses dealing with the avoidance of national insurance contributions through the use of personal service companies and similar intermediaries. There are also consequential amendments to ensure that the clauses are covered by the commencement powers provided in the Bill.
In the March Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced his intention to tackle tax and national insurance avoidance through the use of intermediaries such as service companies. In such cases, a worker sets up a company to provide his or her services to a client in circumstances where, were it not for the service company, the worker would be an employee of the client. That allows the client to make payments to the company rather than the individual without deducting PAYE or national insurance. The worker can then take the money out of the service company in the form of dividends instead of salary; dividends are not liable to national insurance.
Therefore, it is possible for a highly paid office worker earning perhaps £1,800 a week to pay no national insurance contributions at all, while a nurse earning £300 a week pays £23.45 and her employer pays £26.53 in national insurance. A self-employed accountant making


£480 a week would pay about £35 in national insurance, whereas people using service companies can pay nothing at all. That is obviously not right and we are sorting it out.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the Minister will come to the detail of how the Government amendments will amend the Bill as originally drafted. He has just said that the clauses are intended to cover the circumstances in which a person goes from being employed to being a limited company so as to avoid national insurance. Is that the only sort of person covered? We interpret the clauses as covering every single person in a one-man business.

Mr. Timms: I shall now explain how the measures will work and I hope that that will answer the hon. Gentleman's question.
The Chancellor's announcement made it clear that the principle behind the measure—that avoidance had to be stopped—was not for negotiation, but that we would hold consultations on the details of the measure to ensure that legitimate businesses were not damaged. Soon after the announcement, the Inland Revenue sent out more than 1,800 copies of an information pack setting out a basic mechanism for delivering the Chancellor's objective; there were two consultative meetings with 38 representative bodies to discuss the details of the proposals; and 1,700 written comments and suggestions were sent in. Not only did we give the representative bodies the opportunity to comment, but we responded to what they told us with the changes embodied in the Government amendments.

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman justifies his position on the ground that the Government have consulted. Given that the tax law review committee of the Institute for Fiscal Studies has been considering the problem of the classification of self employment for the past three years, will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House why the Government did not have the decency and wisdom to await its recommendations before coming forward with this blunderbuss of a policy proposal?

Mr. Timms: I read that point in the Conservative central office brief as well. The hon. Gentleman asked why we did not wait longer, given that that committee has been considering the matter for three years. We need to make progress, because there is a serious problem. People can choose for themselves how much national insurance they pay or whether they pay it at all.
I have had an interesting e-mail correspondence with someone who works on that basis in a government agency. His service company receives £25,000 a year from the agency, and he pays himself a salary of £15,000 and a dividend of £10,000. That is how he splits up the payment that his company receives. No national insurance is paid on the dividend. That split between salary and dividend is entirely up to him. He can split the money up how he likes, and he can choose for himself how much he pays and by what route. That is absurd.
That person could equally well take the advice provided in the 22 October issue of Computer Contractor in an article entitled
Make hay while the sun shines".

The advice is:
Review your present salary level. The optimum salary to draw this year is £4,335 which covers your personal allowance.
It goes on:
Beg, borrow or steal to avoid paying higher-rate tax this year. Next year you will not be able to avoid it. You should recognise your company for what it is, a tax haven.
That is what we are changing in these proposals, and we are absolutely right to do so.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Many of my constituents will be extremely angry about the way in which the Minister has presented this case. Many of them are employed by oil companies and contractors, and have been forced to become self-employed contractors to maintain their livelihoods. Far from using this for tax avoidance, they are facing pay cuts. The Inland Revenue is capable, by negotiation, of discovering when people are using the system fraudulently. This legislation is quite unnecessary.

Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman is right. People were forced into this arrangement because of the strong tax incentive. We are happy for people to set up service companies, but we do not want the tax inducement in the system that forces people down that road. The hon. Gentleman is right to make the point that people have been forced into this arrangement against their will because the tax system has encouraged this practice.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Timms: I shall make some progress, and I shall give way in a couple of minutes.
There are good reasons for using service companies, apart from saving tax and national insurance contributions. They provide a flexible mechanism for supplying skilled personnel for short contracts, cut out paperwork for clients and allow workers to manage their careers more effectively. The changes that we are making to the mechanisms in the original proposals fully reflect that. These measures will deliver the Chancellor's objective of ensuring that people who work through service companies pay a fair share of tax and national insurance contributions while preserving the flexibility that is valuable in the modern employment market.

Mr. Swinney: The examples that the Minister gave are unrepresentative of the problem that the Government are trying to tackle. Some contractors may make a great deal of money, but they have to carry the strain during barren periods when there is no work in some sectors of the economy. That happens in the North Sea oil sector at certain times. The Minister should have given us representative examples, rather than the prejudiced views that we have heard tonight.

Mr. Timms: The position is exactly as I have described it. The arrangement allows people to decide how much they take in salary and how much they take in dividend,


which means that they can choose how much national insurance they pay. That cannot be right: it allows blatant tax avoidance, and is an obvious loophole.

Mr. Michael Jack: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Timms: I will not give way at this stage, but I will in a moment. I want to make some progress in presenting the case, because the changes that we are making are absolutely right.
The original proposals were subject to two complaints. The first was that a new burden was being imposed on the client to run PAYE and national insurance for his or her employee; the second was that there was a new and much tighter status test relating to the idea of control. The new proposal—the proposal that we are discussing—has only one feature. I have no objection to service companies, but the proposal requires service companies to pay a sensible salary to the person doing the work, rather than diverting the money into dividends.

Mr. Jack: So far, the Minister has used a broad brush and spoken in general terms when presenting his argument for reinstating this part of the Bill. He has just praised certain types of personal service companies. Will he tell us, in straightforward terms, how many are in his "good" category and are deemed all right, and how many are deemed not to be all right? Will he also tell us how much tax and how much national insurance is at risk? So far, he has given us no perspective enabling us to judge the merits of his case.

Mr. Timms: We do not know exactly what is happening in each of the companies concerned, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that large sums are at stake—certainly hundreds of millions of pounds. He said that I had spoken in general terms; let me give him the specifics. The modified proposals were published on 23 September in an Inland Revenue press release. They will place responsibility for complying with the new rules on the service company rather than the client. As I have said, clients will still have the option of continuing to hire workers through service companies on the basis of gross payment without the risk of a new tax or national insurance liability. The obligation to pay a fair share of tax and national insurance will still be there, but it will be an obligation on the service company, not the client.

Mr. Graham Brady: The Minister says that there will be an obligation to pay a reasonable, or sensible, salary. How would he decide what constituted a reasonable salary in the case of Firsway Computer Services, a small company in my constituency that is currently making a considerable investment in equipment? Surely it is not possible to pay what the Minister happens to deem to be a reasonable salary if it is necessary to make an investment in the business.

Mr. Timms: In a moment I shall explain exactly how the calculation will be made.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: My constituency contains one very large information technology firm and a number of small consultancies.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that his proposals will not put people running small service companies at a disadvantage in comparison with large consulting set-ups?

Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend has raised an important point, which she has raised with me before. I know that she takes a close interest in the subject. I can confirm that there will be no threat, and no bias towards larger firms at the expense of smaller firms. There has been some misunderstanding about that, but I can give my hon. Friend the reassurance that she seeks.

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. Ian Bruce: rose—

Mr. Timms: I will not give way again, because I need to make progress if I am to answer some of the questions that Conservative Members have raised.
When it has been established that the new legislation applies to a worker, that person will be obliged to pay PAYE tax and class 1 national insurance on a minimum salary from the service company. The minimum salary is calculated by taking the money received by the service company from the client for the relevant job and deducting amounts for expenses paid by the company.
Those deductions are any expenses that an employee in the same circumstances would be entitled to claim as deductions for tax purposes—

Mr. Charles Wardle: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Timms: I will not for the time being.
Other deductions include any employer's contributions paid by the intermediary to an approved pension scheme on behalf of the worker, any secondary class 1 national insurance contributions paid by the intermediary in respect of the worker, plus a flat-rate allowance of 5 per cent. of the intermediary's receipts from relevant contracts. That deduction is to recognise the general and miscellaneous expenses associated with running a service company.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: rose—

Mr. Timms: I give way, but then I will need to make some progress.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Constituents have made the point to me today that the 5 per cent. allowance has to cover training and that it is wholly inadequate to do that in, for example, the information technology sector, as I am sure the Minister would recognise if he studied the matter carefully. What does he have to say about that?

Mr. Timms: Why did the previous Government leave so many gaping tax loopholes? It is high time that the loopholes were plugged. That is what we are doing with the change. It is high time that the change was made.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Timms: I will not give way. I need to make some more progress.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has stated that he will not give way at the moment.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Timms: I will not at the moment.
The rules that apply to everyone else, including people in the IT and engineering industries who do not work through service companies, are appropriate for IT consultants as well. Many IT consultants will be able to demonstrate that they would qualify to be treated as self-employed under the ordinary definition and therefore would not be affected by the legislation, but someone who works for a long period for a single client, sitting at a desk in the client's office, as part of a team consisting of a mixture of contractors and permanent employees, all doing identical jobs, should pay the same tax and national insurance as those permanent employees. It is wrong that the act of setting up a one-man company can enable—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is standing and shouting. The Minister has stated that he is not giving way at the moment.

Mr. Timms: It is wrong that that act should enable an individual to save over 20 per cent. in national insurance. That is the unfair competition that needs to be addressed and that we are addressing with the changes.
It has been argued that the proposals would favour big foreign firms over small United Kingdom businesses, but that is not true. Our proposals will prevent a form of avoidance that is only available to workers who control their own service companies and can use them to decide the form in which they take their income to minimise tax and national insurance.

Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Timms: No, I will not.
It is not an issue for big companies that cannot be used by employees to manipulate the form of their income. Where there is evidence of tax avoidance by large companies, we are just as ready, unlike the previous Government, to act against that. The real competition that we should be concerned about is that between people who are employees and others doing substantially the same job, but using a service company to pay much less in tax and national insurance. That is unfair and we shall stop it.
The arguments in the other place against our proposals do not add up. There has been a well-funded campaign by a special interest group that is seeking to preserve its right to avoid tax—make hay while the sun shines. We are not going to back down; we owe it to the millions of taxpayers and contributors who are paying their fair

share and who have to bear the burden when other people do not do so. I ask the House to support them, the motion and the Government amendments.

Mr. Trend: The Government try to be the little friend of all the world, but, tonight, they have voted against the disabled, war widows and the bereaved and, now, they are showing that they are no friends of entrepreneurs, or small business men.
The Government are trying to have it both ways. On Monday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer trumpeted a £40 million tax break for entrepreneurs, but, just two days later, the Government are supporting a £475 million tax grab on entrepreneurs. We have to judge the Government by what they do, not by what they say.
10.45 pm
The Government claim that their new stealth tax was designed to counter tax avoidance in the personal services sector. Let there be no misunderstanding about it: we clearly support efforts to tackle genuine tax avoidance. The Government say that there was general concern about the hiring of individuals through their own service companies in the interests of realising fiscal advantages. The Government's objective sounds whiter than white. But who are those wicked tax-dodging entrepreneurs?
Like other hon. Members, I have received considerable correspondence on the subject from constituents—all of them small business men of the kind the Prime Minister says he supports. One of them—the director of a small information technology consultancy business working within the mobile telecommunications industry—told me that forming his own business was a way in which he could progress and yet stay technologically up to date. He said that, if IR 35 is implemented, with the inherent possible risks of being out of work between contracts, there will be no point in continuing his business. Other constituents have written in the same vein.

Mr. Bercow: The message that my hon. Friend conveys to the House is one that will have been heard already today by many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House—not least from Mr. Robert Evans, a distinguished entrepreneur from my own Buckinghamshire constituency, whom I had the privilege of seeing earlier today. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Minister is to justify his position that the provision will favour big companies over small, he should do the decent thing and issue today a list of the small companies that have supported his risible proposals.

Mr. Trend: My hon. Friend makes his own point extremely well.
If the Minister had met the hundreds of people involved in the issue who had the time and ability to come to the House today, he would have seen literally scores of people—honest, hard-working entrepreneurs—who were incredibly angry with the Government, who they feel have fingered them for a stealth tax. Those people are not artful tax dodgers, but decent, honest citizens who are using their initiative, expertise and hard work for career development and opportunities for increased remuneration—not at other people's expense, but from their own efforts. They may be ambitious, but what is wrong with that?
My constituents tell me that, without exception, if IR 35 is implemented, they may be forced to close the small specialist companies they have formed. The Government's proposed new stealth tax on the self-employed is calculated deliberately and viciously to penalise the very entrepreneurial society that the Government, with supreme hypocrisy, say they support. I should remind the House how the proposal came to be considered.
The proposal was first considered by the House on Report, on a night when the Government were trying to avoid another grief of their own making. The proposal then went off to another place. There, the original proposal was savaged, and then radically tinkered with. The new proposal, however, was just as half-baked as the original.
The Government said that they would consult on the proposal over the summer. However, there was no formal consultation document, no terms of reference, no invitation to explore alternative solutions, and no indication of the time scale of the consultation—all of which we should have expected to see in a matter of this importance.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend realise that the matter has an even longer history? Does he know that the Inland Revenue made the same proposal in 1983, but that it was rejected by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer as bad for business? Does he realise that it was proposed again, in 1987, but that it was rejected again, because it was realised that it would be bad for business? Only the current Government—who do not understand what business is all about—have accepted the recommendation from tax officials.

Mr. Trend: The Government's acceptance of the proposal demonstrates that they have not taken on board the detailed criticisms of the proposal's effects on the knowledge-based economy.
We should also note that, despite the changes made in the other place, the bottom line remains the same. The Red Book stated that, in the first year, the proposal would enable a tax grab of £475 million. Less than two weeks ago, the Inland Revenue told us that the new proposal would yield £475 million annually. Whatever else has changed, it is not the Treasury's sticky fingers. There have not been overall changes—merely changes within the group targeted by the Treasury.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The Government are saying that anyone who takes dividends must pay national insurance on them. Surely the logic of that argument must apply to the millionaire entrepreneur who gets millions of pounds of dividend income and perhaps pays himself only £20,000 or £30,000 a year. Surely the principle that the Government apply to the one-man business must apply to everybody else. Perhaps that is their final solution.

Mr. Trend: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no telling where the proposals might lead. I shall come to his point in a minute.
The proposals deserve detailed examination. It is unjust to Members of Parliament that the proposals have never been given proper consideration. It is also unjust to those who work in the knowledge-based economy, who have been treated high-handedly. We shall seek to get the House to agree with another place in keeping the proposal out of the Bill altogether.

Mr. Wardle: Bearing in mind the facts that the proposals affect tax as well as national insurance contributions and that the Contributions Agency is to be transferred to the control of the Inland Revenue, should not the debate take place when we consider the next Finance Bill?

Mr. Trend: The Opposition have made that point frequently. Now that the Contributions Agency has been transferred, it seems more logical than ever that the issue should be dealt with in a Finance Bill. The Inland Revenue aspects of the proposal will have to be dealt with in that way, so we shall revisit the issue many times next year, I suspect.
There are several important points that the Government appear not to have understood. I shall attempt to explain them briefly. The first is the importance of outsourcing. Over the past 20 years it has become increasingly common for high-tech companies to outsource some of their requirements for engineers and computing professionals. That is particularly important in the oil and information technology sectors, where projects commonly last between six and 24 months. The skills required are often highly specialised, and a client may not have a full-time post for an engineer with a given skill. Under those circumstances it makes good business sense to use contract staff instead of taking on full-time employees and laying them off at the end of the project. That way of working has become popular because it is flexible and efficient. It has nothing to do with any tax advantages of using a corporate structure.
The second point is that contract staff are as likely to be employees of large consultancies as independents working through their own companies. If the reason for outsourcing were to disguise employment and avoid tax, we should not find large consultancies providing salaried staff as contractors. One would also expect that the fees paid to a disguised employee would be less than the market-rate salary for a genuine employee. If not, there is no saving to the client. In reality, the rates charged are several times the corresponding salary.
The third point is that profits can be made from knowledge. The difference between the fee and the consultant's salary represents the costs and profits of the company providing the contractor. To equate the fee with the consultant's salary is to make a fundamental economic error: it amounts to saying that there can be no profit in providing skills and knowledge, but that is what the knowledge-based economy is about.
The Government's assumption has been that the same amount is paid as a fee to a service company or directly as a salary. That would hold in the case of disguised employment, but it is not the case in the knowledge-based economy, where the fee is generally three to six times the salary. That must be evidence that a genuine business


transaction is involved and that the arrangement is not to disguise employment. No client would pay such a premium simply to help a consultant to avoid tax.
There is a problem in trying to distinguish between an outsourcing contract entered into for genuine business reasons and one to disguise employment or avoid tax. The aim of the new proposals is to make that distinction by applying case law self-employment tests to any contract staff who work through their own companies or partnerships The Government want to apply those tests to each individual contract, leaving contractors uncertain about how much tax they will have to pay.
Contractors work as employees of their own companies, providing services to other companies. This outsourcing arrangement is the same as that where large consultancies are used, but small contractors are uniquely being told that 95 per cent. of their fee income will be treated as salary for tax purposes. The message is clear: "If you work, do not own your company; if you own a company, do not work." Bosses can make profits, but workers cannot.
My final point concerns fairness. The Paymaster General has stated in numerous letters to concerned business men that she wishes to see a fairer system. I am sure everyone in the House wants that. Independent consultants wish to be able to provide the same services on the same terms as the large consultancies—that is fair. They want to be free to use those profits in the same way as a large consultancy can use its profits—that is fair, too.
Those people do not wish to pay less tax than either an employee or a large consultancy and, in fact, they generally pay more tax than either. Lower overheads mean greater profits, which means more corporation tax paid, not less.
The Prime Minister, the Chancellor and other Ministers have repeatedly made statements about the importance of the knowledge-based economy and especially the IT sector. The contrast with these proposals is astounding.
The Prime Minister told this House only this afternoon that IR 35 would not drive legitimate businesses out of the country. But Richard Barron of the Institute of Directors has said that the Government proposals will hit
a lot of legitimate businesses. The result will be less business being done in the UK.
The Professional Contractors Group reports that, every week, more of its members are leaving the country because of IR 35. Is it not the case that, far from making Britain the enterprise centre of the new economy, the Government are engineering Labour's new brain drain?
We will never tolerate abuse of the tax and national insurance system. However, it appears that other tackling approaches to abuse of the system have not been adequately explored. This could be addressed through a properly conducted consultation process. The use of existing powers, together with a degree of self-regulation within the industry, could tackle any real abuse.
So little thought has gone into these proposals that one must wonder whether the Government have been less concerned with reducing disguised employment than with increasing disguised taxation. This would be a grave miscalculation.
The Secretary of State told the CBI conference:
Entrepreneurs take risks in the face of uncertainty and open up new markets. Governments must not hinder them, but work to ensure the market functions properly and contribute to a strong, just and fair society.
The Chancellor told the same conference that
because we understand the importance of e-commerce we have set ourselves the task of making Britain by 2002 the most favourable environment in which to conduct e-commerce".
How do the Government think British businesses are going to adapt to the e-commerce revolution when the consultants who put those systems in place have been driven out of business or left the country? Why do the Government think that entrepreneurs should take risks in the face of uncertainty and open up new markets? It is the Government who are hindering them. Never mind working to ensure that the market functions properly—the Government are not contributing to a strong, just and fair society. We cannot have a knowledge-based economy with an ignorance-based Government. I urge the House to reject this whole shameful package.

Dr. George Turner: Having worked closely with many in the IT industry over a long period, I can assure Ministers that they are right to look at a long-running scandal—the abuse that can be made of one-person companies to the detriment of the taxpayer and the general public. There has been a complete lack of intent in terms of looking at the way in which people have abused that privilege.
11 pm
Will my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary explain a little more clearly his thinking on the distinction between the employed and the self-employed? As I understand it, if people are considered as effectively self-employed in terms of their relationship with the company that they are working for, an entirely different set of rules from those that he announced earlier would apply.
That is an important point, because I cannot see how people can call themselves entrepreneurs if their conditions are essentially those of a company employee. The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) seemed entirely to ignore that important distinction. The hon. Gentleman was correct, however, in saying that in many companies there will be peaks of demand for information technology skills that even large companies could not be expected to supply from their permanent staff, and that companies make up that skills shortfall in a mixture of ways.
Companies look to larger companies to supply consultants with wide experience to lead teams involving a mixture of permanent employees and the people whose position we are discussing. It is clear that it is in the interests of good IT that we do not prevent that happy mixture from continuing. The Government must ensure that no unfair advantage is taken of the simple basis of setting up a company. I think that the measures are designed to do that.
We must also ensure that we understand how important training is to those who want to work in that environment. The Government should carefully consider allowing those who can make a good case to the effect that they are providing a service of the kind that I have described to charge the appropriate training to their company.


Appropriate training in this area is very expensive and is highly unlikely to be fundable by taking a few percentage points off the fee income that would properly be attracted under good working relationships.
We must ensure that, in protecting those who are genuinely using a company to invest in their own training and education and seeking to profit from it, we do not also allow through the large number of people who, as I know for a fact, have historically exploited the existing regime. I hope that we will continue to consider the issue sensitively, especially when there is doubt about whether someone has self-employed or employed status. We should in particular give sympathetic consideration to genuine expenditure on training.

Dr. Vincent Cable: Several veterans of the debate six months ago are present, including the Minister, but what has happened since is a gradual growth of awareness about what the measure will achieve. Some of us are beginning to receive postbags comparable to those on fox hunting and the issue is arousing real and strong feelings.
In order to take the debate forward, I shall address some of the arguments that the Government have advanced tonight. There are three arguments for what the Government are trying to do. One is revenue, the second is stopping what they regard as tax avoidance, and the third is fairness—the idea that nurses and computer consultants should be treated on the same basis.
On the revenue argument, when this debate started, we were talking about large sums of money. Some £450 million would be generated and would be spent on good causes such as schools and hospitals, and other things of which we all approve. The Inland Revenue has subsequently revised its estimate to more than £200 million, but that is also probably an exaggerated sum. One reason for that is that the contributory principle cuts both ways. If people do not pay national insurance contributions, they do not get the benefits, but if they are forced into being employees they become eligible for contributory benefits. Many of the people in that category have said clearly that if they are made redundant under the new regime, they will start to claim benefits. The loss to the Treasury will become substantially greater.
The other reason why the Treasury estimates are almost certainly exaggerated is that economic leakages will occur. That will happen in two obvious ways. First, some individuals will simply move somewhere else. The profession is very mobile and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Arrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) has pointed out in the past, several companies are moving to Frankfurt because of the new regime. It would not take an enormous flood of companies to do the same to cut the dividend tax revenue, and the value added tax that goes with it, to the point where all the supposed benefits of the measure would be lost.
The other channel through which loss will occur is that of end-users who cease to become competitive. Given the high pound, margins are very fine and the market is very competitive. Countries such as India are moving into the market, and they have good people and low costs. Work will be lost at the margin and revenue will be lost to the Treasury. The Treasury should supply a revised estimate

of the real revenue from the measure. As a hint, perhaps it could draw upon the regulatory impact assessment that the Inland Revenue has done, which is parked in an obscure corner of its website, and which suggests that the loss of revenue will be substantial. The revised figure should take the leakages into account.

Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman said that leakages could occur in two ways, but there is a third way. Because software can be transmitted by e-mail, some individuals are planning to do their work in the United Kingdom but invoice from countries in the European Union, such as Holland. That will mean that we will lose VAT and the direct taxes, and other countries will gain. The Treasury has not done its homework.

Dr. Cable: I am sure that there will be other leakages.

Mr. David Heath: There is yet another form of leakage, in that businesses will cease to trade. The people who are engaged in those one-man consultancies are often in their late 40s and early 50s and are precisely the people who find it most difficult to re-enter the employment market. Instead of contributing to the Exchequer, they would become a drain on it.

Dr. Cable: I am sure that we could go on all night adding more channels for loss of revenue.
The second issue is that of avoidance. Ministers seem to have a caricature picture of many people who do ordinary nine-to-five jobs in IT companies, are paid substantial salaries, have a Porsche in the company garage and have some clever accountant to fix the tax system so that they do not have to pay NICs. That is a grotesque distortion of what happens. The strength of feeling has been summarised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). People really resent being characterised in that way. Many people who work as one-person companies have no choice but to work in that way, as many contracts issued in that business are issued only to people who are limited companies.
The irony is that some genuine tax avoidance problems exist. The Minister knows one of them, the Friday night-Monday morning problem, very well. That practice—when a person resigns from a company on Friday and signs up with it again on Monday—is an example of genuine avoidance. It is common in the industry, but the Bill does nothing to prevent it.

Mr. Wardle: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that most sensible small business people will turn to the Inland Revenue for advice? Does he not agree with the tax experts in the Institute of Chartered Accountants, who say that the Inland Revenue's advice will not be fully operational until next year and that a backlog for that advice is therefore likely to build up? Should not the Government walk before they try to run?

Dr. Cable: A great deal of technical detail remains to be resolved, covering such matters as the definitions of schedules D and E, and the problem of expenses. I shall turn to those matters later, but the mass of detail, involving thousands of contracts, is too great to be sorted out in the next four months.
As for fairness, superficially, the question is plausible and reasonable: why should a nurse earning £20,000 a year be in a less advantageous position than a computer software contractor earning the same amount? That possibility sounds terribly unfair, but the two people are not in comparable positions, as the single-person company has no job security or contributory benefits.
The credibility of the fairness argument was destroyed by a cynical action that the Government took a couple of weeks ago, when they agreed to a loophole found by a delegation of City lawyers and accountants. Will the Minister confirm that, as a result, the City's six biggest accountancy firms, and its leading law firms, will now be exempted from the provisions of IR 35, even though the small computer consultants will still have to pay? If the fat cats are to be exempt from IR 35, it totally invalidates the moral basis of the argument about unfairness.

Mr. Edward Davey: A constituent of mine, Mr. Richard Hider, is a civil engineer with his own service company. His earnings tend to be less than £40,000 a year, which is a relatively modest income for a consultant. Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is totally unfair that the Inland Revenue should be looking to impose a tax hike of thousands of pounds on a person who earns such a modest income? Where is the fairness in that?

Dr. Cable: My hon. Friend is right, but it is revealing that interventions with further examples should be coming only from Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members. No Labour Member wants to intervene to deny what has been said.

Mr. Bercow: Such is the hon. Gentleman's concentration on his speech that he may not have noticed the ministerial reaction to the important point that he has just made. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that no contradiction to his point has been forthcoming, but is he aware that both the Minister and his Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), have been looking elsewhere in pursuit of inspiration and advice?

Dr. Cable: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. The Government's central case has been unravelling by the day. What is so fundamentally wrong with IR 35? First, it betrays a complete inability to understand how new types of flexible employment are evolving in high-technology industries. The Government have been very good at the rhetoric of high tech—at handing out free laptop computers, and so on. It is not hardware but software that lies behind knowledge-based industry. The basis of that software is people, and we must understand how people work in industry. Much project work—in offshore oil and in the computer industry—requires flexibility, often meaning that someone works simultaneously for several employers. The tax system must reflect that, but it does not at present.
11.15 pm
The proposal will do serious long-term damage to a major British industry. I hope that the Minister will mention the Government's regulatory impact assessment in his reply, because I understand that it says that the

proposal will seriously damage competitiveness among many companies struggling to operate. If I am wrong, I should be happy to be contradicted, but I understand that the Government's own evidence suggests that there is a serious problem.
Much of our argument has been about general principle, but several interventions have made it clear that the small print is often crucial. What will make the proposal lethally rather than mildly damaging will be the way in which the Government deal in practice with details such as the split between schedules D and E. Many provisions could do a lot of damage if the Inland Revenue treats them unimaginatively.
The control test is an example of that. If there is close supervision, for example, a person cannot be regarded as being self-employed, but many computer contracts require close supervision. In other cases, the application of standard tests would suggest that exemption cannot be gained for self-employment if the work is not finished, but the software industry often involves work that is being constantly adapted.

Mr. Richard Allan: Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the use of the tools test? Contractors in the IT industry often have to invest heavily in computer equipment that they use at home to gain skills and conduct research, but which they do not take to work because they can use on-site equipment. None the less, they are using off-site tools to gain the skills that they need.

Dr. Cable: That point is fundamentally correct. Many tests were devised in a pre-computer age, some of them in the 19th century. Applying them unimaginatively and mechanically, as both I and the industry fear the Inland Revenue will, will do immense damage.
My final point relates to how expenses will be allowed for. Most people who work in the industry are staggered that the Government should imagine that the operating costs of running a one-person company are 5 per cent. of turnover. In most cases, it is probably about 20 per cent. once normal business administration, training and other things have been taken into account. The 5 per cent. figure is absurd and entirely disconnected from reality.

Mr. Fabricant: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the movement to schedule E will mean that an individual trader who travels around the country to try to win a contract may stay overnight in an hotel and spend a fortune on an internal flight but will be unable to charge that against tax? That will hit smaller businesses even if it might be absorbed by the larger ones.

Dr. Cable: The hon. Gentleman has opened up a whole new area relating to treatment of expenses. Many people in the oil sector—there are a few in the Chamber—have to commute to Norway, running up expenses that a sensible tax regime would allow for, but for which ours does not.
The Government's idea is badly conceived and it will do a great deal of damage. We will join the rest of the Opposition in flatly opposing it.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). I was encouraged


to see the Minister's body language earlier, but was deeply depressed by his answer to my question on training. The 5 per cent. allowance is plainly inadequate in a knowledge-based economy, particularly in information technology. I spoke this afternoon to a constituent who has worked in the sector for 14 years, has not switched into it overnight and spends much more than 5 per cent. of earnings on training. Yet that expenditure simply is not allowed for.
The Government's policy is a very serious mistake. I am encouraged because I think the Minister—whom I have seen frequently recently in Committee—is considering the matter carefully. I am convinced that the Inland Revenue has got it wrong.
I can speak openly about my constituent, Mr. Norman Silvain, who runs a small public limited company in the chartered accountancy sector that employs 12 people, because his views are entirely on the public record. He has told me straight that the Professional Contractors Group has clearly demonstrated the flaws in the Inland Revenue argument. I saw Mr. Silvain today, and he has set out those flaws on paper. I shall write to the Minister outlining Mr. Silvain's arguments, and I will expect a blow-by-blow reply. If that response is not convincing, I hope that the Government will get the message and change their policy.
That largely sums up my argument. Constituents who have written and spoken to me are genuinely offended by the notion that they are fly-by-night tax avoiders. They are not. As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) said, that is a caricature. Although consultation on the proposal lasted for some months, it has not proved satisfactory in depth or detail. The Government have not taken the care to listen to thoroughly responsible small entrepreneurs who know what they are taking about. They have to deal with these matters day by day, and most of them grant themselves realistic salaries on which they pay perfectly proper amounts of PAYE tax.
For example, my constituent Mr. Silvain pays himself a salary which, as I understand it, is approximately 50 per cent. of his company's gross earnings after he has paid his employees. He has to take account of pensions, national insurance, health insurance and training costs. His salary is entirely justifiable and it is on the record. The Inland Revenue and the Minister are not doing justice to the argument with their caricatures.
We seriously doubt that the Government will do anything more than pay lip service to business. However, the Opposition's objective tonight is not to make party political points but to persuade the Government to listen carefully and to rethink this measure, which they have got wrong at present.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I hope that I can be as brief as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell). At the outset, I must declare that I advise the Telecommunications Managers Association, a number of whose members certainly work through limited companies. Some will be caught by this measure and some will not.
I want to address the unfairness of the Government's proposal, which will catch only a small number of people—and certainly not the fat cats that Labour said in

its manifesto it would pursue. I also have a limited company and I am not caught by the Government's proposal, although I am probably a fat cat. Perhaps the Government should rethink their measure in light of that missed opportunity.
The Minister had a short—he is still a young man—but distinguished career in the computer industry. Therefore, unless he suffers from amnesia—I know that the Government Whips are very good at giving Labour Members amnesia—he knows what we are talking about. If an entrepreneur starts up a company employing 100 people, makes £1 million a year and pays himself most of that amount in dividend—because his accountant tells him not to pay it in salary—why should he not have to pay national insurance when the one-man band is compelled to do so under the Government's proposal?
The only logical step for the Government to take is to move to a single tax system that includes national insurance and everybody paying the same amount. After all, nobody is getting contributory benefits any more. The Government wiped that out: if people have more than £8,000 in the bank, the benefits that they expected to accrue from paying national insurance are no longer available.
The real illogicality of this proposal is that it catches the person who has worked for a single employer for a long period. A person who has had three employers or who can show that not more than 50 per cent. of his or her work has come from any one source will be excluded from these requirements. Certainly, the mixed business in my limited company would allow me, because I am not employed by any other person, to ensure that I was fireproofed against these measures.
I have started two groups of companies, and on both occasions I began as a one-man band. One of the companies grew to employ 30 people. The other—my present company—employs only my wife and me, so it is not caught by the proposals. However, my first company, with 30 permanent employees and as many as 200 temporary employees, would never have got off the ground if, as the Government now propose, every penny that came into the company had to be paid to me in a salary on which I had to pay national insurance. I did not pay myself for the first three years; I had to live off the company's earnings because I put all the money back into the company to create employment for others.
IBM got rid of many of its staff, telling them, "You must go off and become limited companies." In the main, the individuals who had a single client in IBM thought that that was not a long-term solution and felt that they had to go and find other clients. These measures would stop them doing that because they would be unable to invest time and money in building up another client base.
People in employment agencies will face difficulties. The scientific and computer industry contains many limited companies that use employment agencies to find them work. How will the measures affect that situation, in which there are, so to speak, three in the bed? The amount that agencies charge is significant and it is certainly not 5 per cent. of the companies' earnings.
I shall give an example, because most hon. Members have not had the experience of being, effectively, a one-man company, as I have. Should we say to people who are employed by one individual that because 50 or 100 per cent. of their salary is given to them in expenses,


they should pay national insurance on that? The costs of MPs' offices, housing allowances, car expenses allowances and all the benefits of this place mean that we probably cost 300 times our salary, so should we now have to pay national insurance on that sum? It appears, from what the Government have said, that people who exploit labour and who have many employees will not pay national insurance on their dividends, and only the one-man businesses will be kicked into touch.
The Minister has the Treasury breathing down his neck. I know that he is mathematically competent; he was the treasurer of Pitcom, which means that he is also technologically competent. He will know that people who move from being an employee on a Friday to being a limited company on Monday have their total take-home pay doubled over that weekend because the company loses all its costs of sickness pay, holidays and so on. They pay themselves twice the original hourly rate, and sometimes much more.
We can calculate that such people move from a position of paying 22 per cent. tax on their marginal income and 40 per cent. on their extra income to a position in which that 40 per cent. tax rate applies to all the income that they draw from the company. Even if those people do not pay a penny in national insurance, the tax take will go up, not down. If the Government force those individuals to go back to being employed, the tax man's share will go down, not up.
When people are setting up a limited company, we should try to get them to roll over money into investing in the employment of other people, such as a secretary. The Government's proposals are wrongheaded and do not add to the Treasury take because they would put off many companies from investing in employees. The companies would probably go offshore because the internet allows anybody to work anywhere these days, and probably to pay their taxes anywhere.

Dr. Julian Lewis: In support of my hon. Friend's remarks, may I give him the example of Mr. Simon Scantlebury in my constituency? In July, he told me:
As a freelance licensed member of a national organisation, I pay nearly £30,000 in Income Tax and National Insurance. If I am forced to work as an employee, my umbrella organisation will fold. Age 61, I will become unemployed. No doubt you agree this is extremely unsound economics!

Mr. Bruce: I hear what my hon. Friend says and I am glad that he related to me his constituent's case, but that individual case is multiplied by hundreds of thousands.
Are we attacking only those people? Will the plumber with 1,000 clients a year not be caught by the provision, simply because he does not have to pay himself a salary? He can pay himself dividends as well.
The Minister has given the House only 24 hours' notice of the changes that he asks us to make. The new proposals are as badly thought out as the original ones. I appeal to him, at this late stage, to withdraw them and, if necessary, to bring them back in the Finance Bill next year, when we may consider the entire matter again.

Mr. Jack: I hope that I have commanded the Minister's attention because, having been the last Financial Secretary

in the last Government, I do know a little bit about how Ministers receive advice from the Inland Revenue about tax avoidance. I take issue with the Minister's comment that the last Government did nothing about tax avoidance. They did a great deal about it. However, the difference between our approach and his is that we checked our facts, and we dealt in law with obvious tax avoidance when we were convinced of the case.
The one thing that the Minister has not done tonight is to lay before us a clear set of reasons for his continued wish to restore clause 70 to the Bill. He could not give me an answer to the factual questions. He could not tell us of the analysis that he must have received from the Inland Revenue to determine his course of action. Just how many people does he believe are avoiding their proper national insurance and tax? We have heard nothing of that. How many examples can he cite of people who have, so to speak, done the Friday to Monday change that other hon. Members have mentioned—people who may well be genuinely taking advantage of the tax system to the disadvantage of the rest?
The Minister has done nothing to put the matter in perspective, and I am afraid that he looks like a Minister who has forgotten the meticulous way in which, as a Back Bencher, he used to question Treasury Ministers. He used to seek out the facts and get detailed information out of the Treasury. Since he has donned the clothes of ministerial office, that meticulous and forensic approach has gone out of the window, and he has bought straight into the typical Inland Revenue broad-brush estimating, whereby staff take a limited sample, multiply it by the largest number that they think of when they get up the next day, give it to the Minister and say, "This is roughly where we are."
In a telling speech, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) questioned the amount of revenue that was at risk. Will the Minister give us the facts? How much national insurance is at risk? How much tax is at risk? How have the calculations been made? I, for one, notice a lack of thoroughness.
I feel strongly about the subject because many of my constituents work for British Aerospace or for the Benefits Agency—in the latter case, a Government agency. As the Secretary of State for Social Security—who is in his place on the Treasury Bench—knows, that agency relies heavily on people who are flexible, in the form of being personal service companies, to do its business at an economic rate. Tonight, the Minister has put forward a proposition that will affect the Government. It will make the Government's business more expensive to do, and yet we hear no analysis on that point.
I have a constituent, Mr. Ian Shearer, who is a very interesting man. He and I have differed politically on many issues. For example, he very strongly opposed the sale of British Aerospace Hawk aircraft to East Timor. However, when it came to his personal position, he was very quick off the mark in seeking my assistance in making representations on IR 35.
Mr. Shearer said in a letter to me, "I am not a dishonest man; I want to pay my tax and my fair contribution. But in my business, as a personal service company, I bear the risk for my pension, sickness and unemployment, periods when I am not in work, and my training, equipment and investment. I cannot guarantee that I will be in continuous employment."
Mr. Shearer has all the characteristics of somebody in self-employment. As the hon. Member for Twickenham pointed out, Mr. Shearer may nevertheless have to work for quite long periods under contract—as he does for the Benefits Agency. The very nature of the information technology business requires him to trade in that way. When I asked him whether he felt that the Minister's revised proposals had done anything to redress the impact on his business and the loss of at least 10 per cent. of his income, he was sceptical, to say the least.
I held further consultation on the matter with the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales because I wanted sound advice—more than the Minister has received. I asked whether it felt that the Minister's revised proposals had done the trick. The answer was no. The institute made a very interesting point: a sole trader running a corner shop who can, under such circumstances, make exactly the same decisions on salary and dividend as a personal service company, remains unaffected by the Minister's proposals.
In contrast, somebody trading entirely legitimately as a personal service company is affected in a way that suggests almost a witch hunt in Government circles against such individuals. The Inland Revenue's pursuit of that group of people is taking place against an unproven factual background.
Is it not interesting that, for its new friends in big business, perhaps in the world of property, Labour is quite happy to condone, for example, the sale of a building after the formation of a company whose sole asset is that building in order to get around some of the problems on stamp duty—we hear nothing from the Minister about that—but, when it comes to individuals making their living as personal service companies, providing flexibility to the aerospace industry and the Benefits Agency, the Government want to do them down? The case is unproven. The Minister should withdraw the proposal and go back to the drawing board.

Mr. Allan: When discussing taxation, we must remember that there is a balance to be struck between stifling industry and fairly raising revenue. It is very much the Liberal Democrat view that the proposals strike the wrong balance, and stifle industry.
We must also always consider in detail the impact in the real world of the proposals that we debate, rather than discussing their virtues in principle in a virtual world. The examples given in the debate show many of the potential real-world impacts of the proposals.
I am particularly concerned about the test to determine whether someone is an employee or a contractor. In the information technology sector particularly, many people will fall foul of that test, but should not. The requirement that somebody should be an employee rather than a contractor may end up killing some of the most successful, most entrepreneurial businesses.
The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) referred to Government contracts. I listened to the views of some contractors earlier, who threw out a challenge: will the Government employ all people on such contracts on the

same terms once the new proposals come into force? Unfortunately, my suspicion is that much of that work will go elsewhere.
The new system will be bureaucratically burdensome and more expensive, so Government agencies will contract overseas, especially in developing areas such as India, rather than use UK-based contractors, as they would have previously. Will the Minister assure those who work for the Benefits Agency or under the many other Government contracts that they will continue to enjoy favourable conditions under IR 35?
I am particularly concerned about the many thousands of ordinary people who have micro-businesses, many of which, we must remember, grow into larger businesses. Over time, they may employ 30, 40, 50 or 100 people. Microsoft started as a three-man business in the United States. We have similar businesses that have grown into enormous corporations. People were given their first break on contracts, they developed the software skills and went on to become major earners in the UK and abroad.
I am particularly concerned about the age group to which my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) referred—the older people who have gone into the IT business. That has been a tremendous opportunity for them to retrain, set up a small service company and get into the IT business.
At a younger age, I found myself in a similar situation. I read an advertisement in The Guardian which asked, "Are you a useless arts graduate? Would you like to learn a profession?" It was an advertisement to study for an MSc in IT. I did the MSc and spent several years contributing to the UK economy. At the end of that period, I was on contracts that varied from day to day and were renewed monthly. Had I stayed longer—had I not stumbled into this job—I would have moved into a service industry and would have hoped to be successful there too. That is the spirit that we are stifling.
At the beginning of the debate, the Minister spoke about motivation. He was wrong to quote one article from one magazine that conveyed a negative view, rather than quoting from the many hundreds and thousands of letters that we receive from contractors, telling us what their motivation was.
One of my constituents wrote:
In freelance consultancy, if I do a good job then I will be rewarded by getting repeat work and possibly more money. Conversely, if my work is not up to scratch then I can be asked to leave. Freelance consultancy has given me the opportunity to work for myself and has proved a great boost to my confidence and self-esteem.
That is the attraction for most contractors—the opportunity to run their own businesses. It is about the entrepreneurial spirit, not the sordid tax avoidance that the Minister presented to us. I accept that there are cases in which that is evident, but it is incumbent upon the Inland Revenue to root out such cases and produce regulations to catch the culprits, not to produce a broad, sweeping net.

Mr. John Burnett: Does my hon. Friend agree that the test has always been whether a contract is a contract of service or a contract for services? The Inland Revenue has always focused on the badges of a trade. Does my hon. Friend agree that the


Inland Revenue is giving Ministers outdated and destructive advice about the badges of a trade and a contract for service?

Mr. Allan: My hon. Friend leads me neatly on to the point with which I intended to conclude—how we decide whether someone is an employee or not. I have referred to the issue of tools, which are essential to the IT industry. Everyone must pay his gate shilling every year to have the latest upgrade of software, in order to remain competitive.
A service provider must have sophisticated computer equipment at home costing many thousands of pounds, if he wants to compete in the IT industry. He does not take that equipment to work, but it is essential to his work. He may end up on the same bench as employees, working on the same machines as employees, but the services that he is providing are utterly dependent on what he does at home, outside the workplace, when he is in employment and working at night—many of those people work extremely long hours, not nine to five—and in the periods between employment, when he builds up and retrains in his skills.
Tools are fundamental. Any notion of a small percentage is ridiculous, given the cost of computer equipment, which a service provider must buy every year to remain at the cutting edge. Training is also fundamental. The service provider may work at the same bench as his employees, but he is employed because of his specialist skills. Another constituent who is a document imaging processing technician wrote to me, telling me about his training. He had a four-year degree, a one year masters degree, and spent seven years on his PhD.
Services consultants get their jobs because of what they carry in their head. That is fundamental to a knowledge-based industry. They get the work because of their 12 years of training. It is not apparent when they sit at the same bench as someone else, but it is the reason why they got the contract. That must be recognised in the rules. I see no sign of it in IR 35, as implemented in the Bill. I hope that the House will throw it out tonight in order to give the Government a chance to think again.

Mr. Peter Brooke: I shall be brief. Unlike many of my colleagues and those on the Liberal Benches who have spoken out of anger, I speak out of sorrow. I am unusual in the House in that when I was in the private sector, I created a company in an activity that was not being practised in the United Kingdom before. I can therefore lay some claim to having planted an acorn that has become an oak.
11.45 pm
I remember 40 years ago, when we were building that business in the 1960s, the ball and chain fastened around our ankles by the selective employment tax introduced by the then Labour Government and the obligation to pay out all our profits in dividends unless we could prove to the Inland Revenue that we needed to retain them in the business: those forces held back the growth of our business. The industry in which I was engaged now carries out hundreds of millions of pounds worth of work in this country; the company in which I worked employs 50 times as many people as it did when we started out and its volume is a thousand times greater. However,

although our productivity and growth is thus demonstrated, there is no question but that we were slowed down by Labour legislation that showed no understanding of the activities in which we were engaged. That is why I speak in sorrow.
I have total confidence that the Government will modify the legislation when they see the damage it causes. I simply regret the opportunity cost to our economy until they realise the error of their ways.

Mr. Fabricant: The Minister was disingenuous, saying that the Government are closing a loophole that the previous Conservative Government had overlooked. As I said earlier, the Inland Revenue proposed the package of measures twice before, and twice before the Conservative Government rejected it because we knew that it would be bad for British industry. Now, the Labour Government have reintroduced a measure that has previously been rejected because they do not understand industry.
Hon. Members from both main Opposition parties have spoken of constituents whom we have met today. Over the past two and a half weeks, I have received via the internet 2,600 letters from people all over the country expressing opposition to the measure. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) is absolutely right to say that the Government will have to change the legislation later, because it is not only the software industry and training consultants that will suffer, but freelance journalists too. Mark my words, once freelance journalists realise that they are being hit hard in the pocket, they will write about it and the Government will start to change direction, as they always do when they think that they are becoming unpopular.
The change to schedule E will mean that small, entrepreneurial companies will suffer, because small companies have to go out to seek business. Large companies that do that can charge expenses against tax, but small companies will now be unable to do so. A small company cannot afford to spend £240 travelling to Aberdeen to win a contract, but, having failed to win it, be unable to charge that expense against tax because it is precluded by schedule E. That is not only wrong and unfair, but crippling to smaller businesses. The Secretary of State shakes his head, but what did he do before becoming a Member of Parliament? He was not in business, so he does not speak from experience. He has simply become a Labour apparatchik imposing a measure similar to the selective employment tax, which was imposed by previous Labour Administrations and which destroyed businesses.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I agree with every word my hon. Friend has so far uttered and with the views expressed in this debate by other right hon. and hon. Friends and Liberal Democrat Members. Does not such a debate make the people of this country consider the relevance of the House of Commons, when the argument is so clearly overwhelming, but the Government, for party political reasons, ill-advisedly refuse to change their view?

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—the Government are merely dupes of the Inland Revenue. Twice the Inland Revenue came up with the scheme and twice it was rejected by a Conservative Government; but,


because they are desperate to make hundreds of millions of pounds from small business men—small business men who should be able to become large business men—the Labour Government have accepted the scheme.
I started as a small business man: my business ended up operating in 48 countries worldwide and employing hundreds of people in the United Kingdom, each of whom paid tax. If this legislation had been in place when I started my business, it would never have got off the ground. Entrepreneurs are the future of Britain. The Government have shown their true colours. They will stifle entrepreneurs at birth, and they should be ashamed of themselves.

Mr. Timms: I have listened with great interest to all the points made by Opposition Members. Not one of those who spoke against these changes addressed the central issue. The present arrangement allows people to choose how much national insurance they pay, or whether they pay it at all. They can choose how much they take in salary, and how much in dividend. No one can defend that arrangement, and no one has attempted to do so. That is the position that we are in, and it is the basis on which Computer Contractor advised people, in its most recent issue, to take a salary equal to the lower limit of personal allowance.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Timms: I shall not give way at the moment.
That state of affairs is not defensible. No Government can stand back and allow that situation to continue. The country will want to know why the Tory party is a soft touch on tax avoidance.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Timms: I am not giving way.
The opportunities for avoiding national insurance contributions are plain for all to see. I accept that many people do not take the opportunity to avoid paying their national insurance contributions. We have heard about some of them, and I have been in discussion with someone in that position. The opportunity to avoid paying national insurance is available for anyone who wishes to take it. That is clearly not right, so we need to make these changes.
I emphasise that, under our proposals, people are free, as they have been in the past, to establish service companies. All that has changed is that those service companies must pay their proprietors a sensible salary so that the national insurance that is due from them is paid.
The Government have been and will continue to be vigorous in promoting enterprise. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor spoke earlier this week about enterprise management incentives, which have been widely welcomed. Everyone must pay their fair share. That is the

basis on which our economy works, and it is right that everyone should contribute. All of us have the right to services and benefits as a result of our payment of tax and national insurance. We also have a responsibility to pay our fair share, and these new arrangements will provide for that.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) asked me for some figures. The estimate of the revenue at stake has not changed: it is about £220 million into the national insurance fund, and £255 million in income tax. Our position on that has remained consistent. We estimate that the number of individuals who will be affected is about 100,000.
The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), in an earlier intervention before his entertaining contribution towards the end of the debate, which the House will have enjoyed, asked about the expenses that people can claim. The proposal in the 23 September press release is that they can claim the expenses that an employee in the same circumstances would be entitled to claim as deductions for tax purposes; so the hon. Gentleman is mistaken on that point.

Sir Robert Smith: Do the figures given by the Minister mean that 100,000 people will have to pay an extra £4,700 in tax?

Mr. Timms: As I have made clear, there are substantial opportunities for avoiding national insurance, and people are freely being advised to take those opportunities. Any responsible Government would act to close the loophole, and that is what we are doing. It should have been done years ago, but we are doing it tonight, and it is absolutely the right thing to do.

Mr. Fabricant: rose—

Miss McIntosh: rose—

Mr. Timms: I will give way to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), who has been trying to intervene for some time.

Miss McIntosh: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but he does not seem to appreciate the depth of feeling in the country against IR 35, which is reflected in the amendment.
Is it normal procedure for a Government to indicate a substantial change of policy through an Inland Revenue press release? Some of my constituents feel that they have been dealt with in an underhand manner, by stealth. A tax has been imposed on them, and the only notification that they had came in a press release.

Mr. Timms: The proposals published on 23 September have been received extremely well around the country. They have been widely welcomed, not least by the


Chartered Institute of Taxation and the Professional Contractors Group. The debate has continued, but as I say, the changes have been widely welcomed.
I defy the hon. Lady, or any of her hon. Friends, to defend the arrangement left by the last Government whereby people can choose how much national insurance they pay, or whether they pay any at all. That is the central issue in the debate, and those who have spoken against the proposals have not addressed it. No one has sought to defend the present position, because it is indefensible. That is why we are making the changes that we are making tonight, and we are doing absolutely the right thing.
The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) suggested that some other way of making the changes was available. I should be interested to know what proposals he has. The current position has existed for years; the last Government had 18 years in which to tackle it, and conspicuously failed to do so. That is why we need to take action now.
The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), a distinguished former Treasury Minister, raised a number of points. Let me tell him that all Governments, including his, want to tax genuine small businesses differently from employees. The employment status tests are the agreed and long-established way of making that distinction, and will continue to be used in that way for the purpose of this measure. That is absolutely right.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner)—who has explained to me that he has had to leave the Chamber—asked me about the distinction between self-employment and employment. The conventional distinction will be used to decide whether the new rules apply to service company workers. That means that the same criteria will be applied in the same way as they always have been in the past. There is no intention of applying the rules in any different way. They are well established and well understood; they are flexible; they take account of the whole pattern of a worker's engagement, so that a skilled worker who works for many different clients can be treated as one who is self-employed.
Today, the Inland Revenue sent out to representative bodies—the Professional Contractors Group and others, including those in the information technology industry—a draft guidance paper to clarify the way in which the criteria will apply to a typical situation involving a service company. That is the consultation. As always, we are determined to get the decisions right and we shall listen to the responses that we receive, but those criteria and guidelines will make the distinction as clear as it possibly can be, and will simplify the issues that service companies have to face.

It being Twelve o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order this day.

Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 345, Noes 203.

Division No. 287]
[12 midnight


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cranston, Ross


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Crausby, David


Ainger, Nick
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Alexander, Douglas
Cummings, John


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary



Atherton, Ms Candy
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Austin, John
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Barnes, Harry
Dalyell, Tam


Barron, Kevin
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Battle, John
Darvill, Keith


Bayley, Hugh
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Beard, Nigel
Davidson, Ian


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Dawson, Hilton


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Denham, John


Bennett, Andrew F
Dismore, Andrew


Benton, Joe
Dobbin, Jim


Bermingham, Gerald
Donohoe, Brian H


Berry, Roger
Doran, Frank


Best, Harold
Dowd, Jim


Betts, Clive
Drew, David


Blackman, Liz
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Blizzard, Bob
Edwards, Huw


Boateng, Paul
Efford, Clive


Borrow, David
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Ennis, Jeff


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Etherington, Bill


Bradshaw, Ben
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Fisher, Mark


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Flint, Caroline


Browne, Desmond
Flynn, Paul


Buck, Ms Karen
Follett, Barbara


Burden, Richard
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Burgon, Colin
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Foulkes, George


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Gapes, Mike


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Caplin, Ivor
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Caton, Martin
Godsiff, Roger


Cawsey, Ian
Goggins, Paul


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Chaytor, David
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Church, Ms Judith
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clapham, Michael
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Grocott, Bruce



Grogan, John


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Gunnell, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hain, Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clelland, David
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clwyd, Ann
Hanson, David


Coaker, Vernon
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Coffey, Ms Ann
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Coleman, Iain
Healey, John


Colman, Tony
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Cooper, Yvette
Hepburn, Stephen


Corbett, Robin
Heppell, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hesford, Stephen


Corston, Ms Jean
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Cousins, Jim
Hill, Keith






Hinchliffe, David
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Martlew, Eric


Hoey, Kate
Maxton, John


Hood, Jimmy
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hope, Phil
Meale, Alan


Hopkins, Kelvin
Merron, Gillian


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Howells, Dr Kim
Miller, Andrew


Hoyle, Lindsay
Moffatt, Laura


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Humble, Mrs Joan
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hurst, Alan



Hutton, John
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Morley, Elliot


Illsley Eric
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Mountford, Kali


Jamieson, David
Mudie, George


Jenkins, Brian
Mullin, Chris


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)



Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Norris, Dan


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
O'Hara, Eddie


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Olner, Bill


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
O'Neill, Martin


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Organ, Mrs Diana


Keeble, Ms Sally
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Pearson, Ian


Kemp, Fraser
Pendry, Tom


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Perham, Ms Linda


Khabra, Piara S
Pickthall, Colin


Kidney, David
Pike, Peter L


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)



King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Plaskitt, James


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Pollard, Kerry


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Pond, Chris


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Pope, Greg


Laxton, Bob
Pound, Stephen


Lepper, David
Powell, Sir Raymond


Leslie, Christopher
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Levitt, Tom
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Primarolo, Dawn


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Prosser, Gwyn


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Purchase, Ken


Linton, Martin
Quinn, Lawrie


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Lock, David
Rammell, Bill


McAvoy, Thomas
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


McCabe, Steve
Roche, Mrs Barbara


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Rooker, Jeff


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Rooney, Terry



Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Rowlands, Ted


Maodonald, Calum
Roy, Frank


McDonnell, John
Ruane, Chris


McFall, John
Ruddock, Joan


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Ryan, Ms Joan


McIsaac, Shona
Sarwar, Mohammad


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Savidge, Malcolm


Mackinlay, Andrew



McNulty, Tony
Sawford, Phil


MacShane, Denis
Sedgemore, Brian


Mactaggart, Fiona
Shaw, Jonathan


McWalter, Tony
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mallaber, Judy
Shipley, Ms Debra


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Singh, Marsha


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)





Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Touhig, Don


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Trickett, Jon


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)



Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Snape, Peter
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Soley, Clive
Tynan, Bill


Spellar, John
Vaz, Keith


Squire, Ms Rachel
Walley, Ms Joan


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Ward, Ms Claire


Steinberg, Gerry
Watts, David


Stevenson, George
White, Brian


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wicks, Malcolm


Stinchcombe, Paul
William, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Stoate, Dr Howard




Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Wills, Michael


Stringer, Graham
Winnick, David


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wise, Audrey


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wood, Mike



Woolas, Phil


Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)
Worthington, Tony


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Wray, James


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Wyatt, Derek


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)



Timms, Stephen
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tipping, Paddy
Mr. Graham Allen and


Todd, Mark
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Chidgey, David


Allan, Richard
Chope, Christopher


Amess, David
Clappison, James


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy



Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Collins, Tim


Baker, Norman
Colvin, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Ballard, Jackie
Cotter, Brian


Beggs, Roy
Cran, James


Berth, Rt Hon A J
Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)



Bercow, John
Curry, Rt Hon David


Beresford, Sir Paul
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Blunt, Crispin
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Body, Sir Richard
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)


Boswell, Tim



Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Day, Stephen


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Duncan, Alan


Brady, Graham
Duncan Smith, Iain


Brake, Tom
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Brand, Dr Peter
Evans, Nigel


Brazier, Julian
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Breed, Colin
Faber, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fabricant, Michael


Browning, Mrs Angela
Fallon, Michael


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fearn, Ronnie


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Burnett, John
Foster, Don (Bath)


Burns, Simon
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Burstow, Paul
Fraser, Christopher


Butterfill, John
Gale, Roger


Cable, Dr Vincent
Garnier, Edward


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
George, Andrew (St Ives)



Gibb, Nick


Canavan, Dennis
Gill, Christopher


Cash, William
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Gorrie, Donald



Gray, James






Green, Damian
Paterson, Owen


Greenway, John
Pickles, Eric


Grieve, Dominic
Prior, David


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Randall, John


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hammond, Philip
Rendel, David


Hancock, Mike
Robathan, Andrew


Harris, Dr Evan
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Harvey, Nick
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Hawkins, Nick
Ruffley, David


Heald, Oliver
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frame)
St Aubyn, Nick


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Salmond, Alex


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Sanders, Adrian


Horam, John
Sayeed, Jonathan


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Shepherd, Richard


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Hunter, Andrew
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Soames, Nicholas


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Jenkin, Bernard
Spicer, Sir Michael


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Spring, Richard


Keetch, Paul
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Steen, Anthony


Key, Robert
Streeter, Gary


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Stunell, Andrew


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Swayne, Desmond


Kirkwood, Archy
Swinney, John


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Syms, Robert


Lansley, Andrew
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Leigh, Edward
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Letwin, Oliver
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Lidington, David
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Thompson, William


Livsey, Richard
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Townend, John


Llwyd, Elfyn
Tredinnick, David


Loughton, Tim
Trend, Michael


Luff, Peter
Tyler, Paul


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Tyrie, Andrew


McAllion, John
Viggers, Peter


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Walter, Robert


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Wardle, Charles


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Waterson, Nigel


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Webb, Steve


McLoughlin, Patrick
Wells, Bowen


Madel, Sir David
Welsh, Andrew


Maples, John
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Mates, Michael
Whittingdale, John


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Wilkinson, John


May, Mrs Theresa
Willetts, David


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Willis, Phil


Moore, Michael
Wilshire, David


Moss, Malcolm
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Nicholls, Patrick
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Norman, Archie
Woodward, Shaun


Oaten, Mark
Yeo, Tim


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Öpik, Lembit



Ottaway, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Page, Richard
Mrs. Eleanor Laing and


Paice, James
Mr. Keith Simpson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the remainig Questions required to be put at that hour.

Amendment proposed to the words so restored to the Bill: (a), in page 74, line 36, leave out "in any specified circumstances".—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 344, Noes 166.

Division No. 288]
[12.13 am


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Corston, Ms Jean


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cousins, Jim


Ainger, Nick
Cranston, Ross


Alexander, Douglas
Crausby, David


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Cummings, John


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Austin, John



Barnes, Harry
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Barron, Kevin
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Battle, John
Dalyell, Tam


Bayley, Hugh
Darting, Rt Hon Alistair


Beard, Nigel
Darvill, Keith


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Davidson, Ian


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Bennett, Andrew F
Dawson, Hilton


Benton, Joe
Denham, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Dismore, Andrew


Berry, Roger
Dobbin, Jim


Best, Harold
Donohoe, Brian H


Betts, Clive
Doran, Frank


Blackman, Liz
Dowd, Jim


Blears, Ms Hazel
Drew, David


Blizzard, Bob
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Boateng, Paul
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Borrow, David
Edwards, Huw


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Efford, Clive


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Bradshaw, Ben
Ennis, Jeff


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Etherington, Bill


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Fisher, Mark


Browne, Desmond
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Buck, Ms Karen
Flint Caroline


Burden, Richard
Flynn, Paul


Burgon, Colin
Follett, Barbara


Butler, Mrs Christine
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Foulkes, George


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gapes, Mike


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Caplin, Ivor
Gerrard, Neil


Caton, Martin
Gibson, Dr Ian


Cawsey, Ian
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Godsiff, Roger


Chaytor, David
Goggins, Paul


Church, Ms Judith
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clapham, Michael
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)



Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Grocott, Bruce


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Grogan, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Gunnell, John


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hain, Peter


Clelland, David
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clwyd, Ann
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Coaker, Vernon
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hanson, David


Coleman, Iain
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Colman, Tony
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Healey, John


Cooper, Yvette
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Corbett, Robin
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hepburn, Stephen






Heppell, John
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hesford, Stephen
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hill, Keith
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hinchliffe, David
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Martlew, Eric


Hoey, Kate
Maxton, John


Hood, Jimmy
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hope, Phil
Meale, Alan


Hopkins, Kelvin
Merron, Gillian


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Howells, Dr Kim
Miller, Andrew


Hoyle, Lindsay
Moffatt, Laura


Hughes, Ms Bevetley (Stretford)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Humble, Mrs Joan
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hurst, Alan
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hutton, John
Morley, Elliot


Iddon, Dr Brian
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Illsley, Eric
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Mountford, Kali


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Mudie, George


Jamieson, David
Mullin, Chris


Jenkins, Brian
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)



Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Norris, Dan


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
O'Hara, Eddie


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Olner, Bill


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
O'Neill, Martin


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Organ, Mrs Diana


Keeble, Ms Sally
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Pearson, Ian


Kemp, Fraser
Pendry, Tom


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Perham, Ms Linda


Khabra, Piara S
Pickthall, Colin


Kidney, David
Pike, Peter L


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Plaskitt, James


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Pollard, Kerry


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Pond, Chris


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Pope, Greg


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Pound, Stephen


Laxton, Bob
Powell, Sir Raymond


Lepper, David
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Leslie, Christopher
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Levitt, Tom
Primarolo, Dawn


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Prosser, Gwyn


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Purchase, Ken


Uddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Quinn, Lawrie


Linton, Martin
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Rammell, Bill


Lock, David
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


McAllion, John
Roche, Mrs Barbara


McAvoy, Thomas
Rooker, Jeff


McCabe, Steve
Rooney, Terry


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Rowlands, Ted



Roy, Frank


McDonagh, Siobhain
Ruane, Chris


Macdonald, Calum
Ruddock, Joan


McDonnell, John
Ryan, Ms Joan


McFall, John
Sarwar, Mohammad


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Savidge, Malcolm


McIsaac, Shona
Sawford, Phil


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Sedgemore, Brian


Mackinlay, Andrew
Shaw, Jonathan


McNulty, Tony
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


MacShane, Denis
Shipley, Ms Debra


Mactaggart, Fiona
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McWalter, Tony
Singh, Marsha


Mallaber, Judy
Skinner, Dennis





Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Touhig, Don


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Trickett, Jon


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)



Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Snape, Peter
Tynan, Bill


Soley, Clive
Vaz, Keith


Spellar, John
Walley, Ms Joan


Squire, Ms Rachel
Ward, Ms Claire


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Watts, David


Steinberg, Gerry
White, Brian


Stevenson, George
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Wicks, Malcolm


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Stinchcombe, Paul
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stoate, Dr Howard
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Wills, Michael


Stringer, Graham
Winnick, David


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wise, Audrey


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wood, Mike



Woolas, Phil


Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)
Worthington, Tony


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Wray, James


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Wyatt, Derek


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)



Timms, Stephen
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tipping, Paddy
Mr. Graham Allen and


Todd, Mark
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.




NOES


Allan, Richard
Cotter, Brian


Amess, David
Cran, James


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy



Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Curry, Rt Hon David


Baker, Norman
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Ballard, Jackie
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Beggs, Roy
Day, Stephen


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Duncan, Alan


Bercow, John
Duncan Smith, Iain


Beresford, Sir Paul
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Blunt, Crispin
Evans, Nigel


Boswell, Tim
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Faber, David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Fabricant, Michael


Brady, Graham
Fallon, Michael


Brake, Tom
Fearn, Ronnie


Brand, Dr Peter
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Brazier, Julian
Foster, Don (Bath)


Breed, Colin
Fraser, Christopher


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Garnier, Edward


Browning, Mrs Angela
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gibb, Nick


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gill, Christopher


Burnett, John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Burns, Simon
Gorrie, Donald


Burstow, Paul
Gray, James


Cable, Dr Vincent
Green, Damian


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Grieve, Dominic



Hammond, Philip


Canavan, Dennis
Hancock, Mike


Cash, William
Harris, Dr Evan


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Harvey, Nick



Hawkins, Nick


Chidgey, David
Heald, Oliver


Chope, Christopher
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward



Horam, John


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Collins, Tim
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Colvin, Michael
Hunter, Andrew






Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Ruffley, David


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Keetch, Paul
St Aubyn, Nick


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Salmond, Alex


Key, Robert
Sanders, Adrian


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Shepherd, Richard


Kirkwood, Archy
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Lansley, Andrew
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Leigh, Edward
Spicer, Sir Michael


Letwin, Oliver
Spring, Richard


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lidington, David
Steen, Anthony


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Streeter, Gary


Livsey, Richard
Stunell, Andrew


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Swayne, Desmond


Llwyd, Elfyn
Swinney, John


Loughton, Tim
Syms, Robert


Luff, Peter
Tapsell, Sir Peter


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Thompson, William


McLoughlin, Patrick
Tonge, Dr Jenny



Trend, Michael


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Tyler, Paul


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Tyrie, Andrew


May, Mrs Theresa
Viggers, Peter


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Wardle, Charles


Moore, Michael
Webb, Steve


Nicholls, Patrick
Welsh, Andrew


Norman, Archie
Whittingdale, John


Oaten, Mark
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Wilkinson, John


Öpik, Lembit
Willetts, David


Page, Richard
Willis, Phil


Paice, James
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Paterson, Owen
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Pickles, Eric
Woodward, Shaun


Prior, David
Yeo, Tim


Randall, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Redwood, Rt Hon John



Rendel, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Robathan, Andrew
Mr. David Wilshire and


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Government amendments (b) to (t) to the words so restored to the Bill agreed to.

Clause 71

EARNINGS OF WORKERS SUPPLIED BY SERVICE COMPANIES ETC: NORTHERN IRELAND

Lords amendment: No.54, leave out clause 71.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

The House divided: Ayes 337, Noes 124.

Division No. 289]
[12.26 am


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Austin, John


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Barnes, Harry


Ainger, Nick
Barron, Kevin


Alexander, Douglas
Battle, John


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bayley, Hugh


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Beard, Nigel


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Atherton, Ms Candy
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)





Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Drew, David


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Bennett, Andrew F
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Benton, Joe
Edwards, Huw


Bermingham, Gerald
Efford, Clive


Berry, Roger
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Best, Harold
Ennis, Jeff


Betts, Clive
Etherington, Bill


Blackman, Liz
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Blears, Ms Hazel
Fisher, Mark


Blizzard, Bob
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Boateng, Paul
Flint, Caroline


Borrow, David
Flynn, Paul


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Follett, Barbara


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bradshaw, Ben
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Foulkes, George


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Gapes, Mike


Browne, Desmond
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Buck, Ms Karen
Gerrard, Neil


Burden, Richard
Gibson, Dr Ian


Burgon, Colin
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Butler, Mrs Christine
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Goggins, Paul


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Caplin, Ivor
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Caton, Martin
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Cawsey, Ian
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Grocott, Bruce


Chaytor, David
Grogan, John


Church, Ms Judith
Gunnell, John


Clapham, Michael
Hain, Peter


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)



Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hanson, David


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Healey, John


Clelland, David
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clwyd, Ann
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Coaker, Vernon
Hepburn, Stephen


Coffey, Ms Ann
Heppell, John


Coleman, Iain
Hesford, Stephen


Colman, Tony
Hill, Keith


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Hinchliffe, David


Cooper, Yvette
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Corbett, Robin
Hoey, Kate


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hood, Jimmy


Corston, Ms Jean
Hope, Phil


Cousins, Jim
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cranston, Ross
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Crausby, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cummings, John
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Humble, Mrs Joan



Hurst, Alan


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hutton, John


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Iddon, Dr Brian


Dalyell, Tam
Illsley, Eric


Darting, Rt Hon Alistair
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Darvill, Keith
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jamieson, David


Davidson, Ian
Jenkins, Brian


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)



Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Denham, John
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Dismore, Andrew
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Doran, Frank
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Dowd, Jim
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald






Keeble, Ms Sally
Pearson, Ian


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pendry, Tom


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Perham, Ms Linda


Kemp, Fraser
Pickthall, Colin


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pike, Peter L


Khabra, Piara S
Plaskitt, James


Kidney, David
Pollard, Kerry


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Pond, Chris


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Pope, Greg


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Pound, Stephen


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Powell, Sir Raymond


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Laxton, Bob
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Lepper, David
Primarolo, Dawn


Leslie, Christopher
Prosser, Gwyn


Levitt, Tom
Purchase, Ken


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Quinn, Lawrie


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Linton, Martin
Rammell, Bill


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Lock, David
Roche, Mrs Barbara


McAvoy, Thomas
Rooker, Jeff


McCabe, Steve
Rooney, Terry


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Rowlands, Ted



Roy, Frank


McDonagh, Siobhain
Ruane, Chris


Macdonald, Calum
Ruddock, Joan


McDonnell, John
Ryan, Ms Joan


McFall, John
Sarwar, Mohammad


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Savidge, Malcolm


McIsaac, Shona
Sawford, Phil


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Sedgemore, Brian


Mackinlay, Andrew
Shaw, Jonathan


McNulty, Tony
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


MacShane, Denis
Shipley, Ms Debra


Mactaggart, Fiona
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McWalter, Tony
Singh, Marsha


Mallaber, Judy
Skinner, Dennis


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert



Martlew, Eric
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Maxton, John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Snape, Peter


Meale, Alan
Soley, Clive


Merron, Gillian
Spellar, John


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Miller, Andrew
Steinberg, Gerry


Moffatt, Laura
Stevenson, George


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Morley, Elliot
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stringer, Graham


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Mountford, Kali
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mudie, George
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mullin, Chris



Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Norris, Dan
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Timms, Stephen


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Tipping, Paddy


O'Hara, Eddie
Todd, Mark


Olner, Bill
Touhig, Don


O'Neill, Martin
Trickett, Jon


Organ, Mrs Diana
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)





Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Wills, Michael


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Winnick, David


Tynan, Bill
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Vaz, Keith
Wise, Audrey


Walley, Ms Joan
Wood, Mike


Ward, Ms Claire
Woolas, Phil


Watts, David
Worthington, Tony


White, Brian
Wray, James


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Wicks, Malcolm
Wyatt, Derek


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)




Tellers for the Ayes:


Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Mr. Graham Allen and


Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.




NOES


Allan, Richard
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Amess, David
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Keetch, Paul


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Baker, Norman
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Ballard, Jackie
Kirkwood, Archy


Beggs, Roy
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Bercow, John
Lansley, Andrew


Blunt, Crispin
Leigh, Edward


Brake, Tom
Letwin, Oliver


Brand, Dr Peter
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Brazier, Julian
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Breed, Colin
Livsey, Richard


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Llwyd, Elfyn


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Loughton, Tim


Burnett, John
Luff, Peter


Burstow, Paul
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Maclean, Rt Hon David



McLoughlin, Patrick


Canavan, Dennis
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Cash, William
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Chidgey, David
Moore, Michael


Chope, Christopher
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Öpik, Lembit



Page, Richard


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Paterson, Owen


Collins, Tim
Pickles, Eric


Colvin, Michael
Randall, John


Cotter, Brian
Rendel, David


Cran, James
Robathan, Andrew


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Day, Stephen
Ruffley, David


Evans, Nigel
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
St Aubyn, Nick


Fabricant, Michael
Salmond, Alex


Fearn, Ronnie
Sanders, Adrian


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Shepherd, Richard


Foster, Don (Bath)
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Fraser, Christopher
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Gibb, Nick
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gill, Christopher
Spring, Richard


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gorrie, Donald
Stunell, Andrew


Gray, James
Swayne, Desmond


Grieve, Dominic
Swinney, John


Hammond, Philip
Syms, Robert


Hancock, Mike
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Harris, Dr Evan
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Harvey, Nick
Thompson, William


Hawkins, Nick
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Heald, Oliver
Tredinnick, David


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Tyler, Paul


Horam, John
Tyrie, Andrew


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Wardle, Charles


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Webb, Steve


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Welsh, Andrew






Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd
Woodward, Shaun


Wilkinson, John



Willis, Phil
Tellers for the Noes:


Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Mr. David Wilshire and


Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Government amendments (a) to (t) to the words so restored to the Bill agreed to.

Clause 84

EXTENT

Lords amendment: No. 85, in page 87, line 23, leave out (", 70")

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 104.

Division No. 290]
[12.39 am


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Ainger, Nick
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Alexander, Douglas
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clelland, David


Austin, John
Clwyd, Ann


Barnes, Harry
Coaker, Vernon


Barron, Kevin
Coffey, Ms Ann


Battle, John
Coleman, Iain


Bayley, Hugh
Colman, Tony


Beard, Nigel
Cooper, Yvette


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Corston, Ms Jean


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cousins, Jim


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Cranston, Ross


Bennett, Andrew F
Crausby, David


Benton, Joe
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Bermingham, Gerald
Cummings, John


Berry, Roger
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Best, Harold
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Betts, Clive
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Blackman, Liz
Dalyell, Tam


Blears, Ms Hazel
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Blizzard, Bob
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Boateng, Paul
Davidson, Ian


Borrow, David
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Dawson, Hilton


Bradshaw, Ben
Denham, John


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Dismore, Andrew


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Dobbin, Jim


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Donohoe, Brian H


Browne, Desmond
Doran, Frank


Buck, Ms Karen
Dowd, Jim


Burden, Richard
Drew, David


Burgon, Colin
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Edwards, Huw


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Efford, Clive


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Caplin, Ivor
Ennis, Jeff


Caton, Martin
Etherington, Bill


Cawsey, Ian
Fisher, Mark


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Flint, Caroline


Chaytor, David
Flynn, Paul


Church, Ms Judith
Follett, Barbara


Clapham, Michael
Foster, Rt Hon Derek





Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Gapes, Mike



George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gerrard, Neil
Macdonald, Calum


Gibson, Dr Ian
McDonnell, John


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Godsiff, Roger
McIsaac, Shona


Goggins, Paul
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McNulty, Tony


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
MacShane, Denis


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McWalter, Tony


Grogan, John
Mallaber, Judy


Gunnell, John
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hain, Peter
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hanson, David
Martlew, Eric


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Maxton, John


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Healey, John
Meale, Alan


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Merron, Gillian


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hepburn, Stephen
Miller, Andrew


Heppell, John
Moffatt, Laura


Hesford, Stephen
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hill, Keith
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hinchliffe, David
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hoey, Kate
Morley, Elliot


Hood, Jimmy
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hope, Phil
Mountford, Kali


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mudie, George


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Mullin, Chris


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Norris, Dan


Humble, Mrs Joan
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hurst, Alan
O'Hara, Eddie


Iddon, Dr Brian
Olner, Bill


Illsley, Eric
O'Neill, Martin


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jamieson, David
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jenkins, Brian
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Pendry, Tom


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Plaskitt, James


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Pollard, Kerry


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pond, Chris


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pope, Greg


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pound, Stephen


Kemp, Fraser
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Khabra, Piara S
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kidney, David
Primarolo, Dawn


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Prosser, Gwyn


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Purchase, Ken


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Quinn, Lawrie


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Rammell, Bill


Laxton, Bob
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Lepper, David
Rooker, Jeff


Leslie, Christopher
Rooney, Terry


Levitt, Tom
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rowlands, Ted


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Roy, Frank


Linton, Martin
Ruane, Chris


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Ruddock, Joan


McAvoy, Thomas
Ryan, Ms Joan


McCabe, Steve
Sarwar, Mohammad






Savidge, Malcolm
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Sawford, Phil
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Sedgemore, Brian
Timms, Stephen


Shaw, Jonathan
Tipping, Paddy


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Todd, Mark


Shipley, Ms Debra
Touhig, Don


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Trickett, Jon


Singh, Marsha
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Skinner, Dennis
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Tynan, Bill



Walley, Ms Joan


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Ward, Ms Claire


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Watts, David


Snape, Peter
White, Brian


Soley, Clive
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Spellar John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Squire Ms Rachel



Starkey Dr Pivoted
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Steinberg, Gerry
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)



Wills, Michael


Stevenson, George
Winnick, David


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wise, Audrey


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wood, Mike


Stoate, Dr Howard
Woolas, Phil


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Worthington, Tony


Stringer, Graham
Wray, James


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wyatt, Derek


Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Mr. Graham Allen and


Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.




NOES


Allan, Richard
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Amess, David
Gibb, Nick


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Gill, Christopher


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Baker, Norman
Gorrie, Donald


Ballard, Jackie
Gray, James


Beggs, Roy
Grieve, Dominic


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Hancock, Mike


Blunt, Crispin
Harris, Dr Evan


Brake, Tom
Harvey, Nick


Brand, Dr Peter
Heald, Oliver


Breed, Colin
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Horam, John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Burnett, John
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Burstow, Paul
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Keetch, Paul



Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Canavan, Dennis
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Chidgey, David
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Chope, Christopher
Leigh, Edward


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Letwin, Oliver



Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Collins, Tim
Livsey, Richard


Colvin, Michael
Llwyd, Elfyn


Cotter, Brian
Loughton, Tim


Cran, James
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Day, Stephen
Moore, Michael


Evans, Nigel
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Öpik, Lembit


Fabricant, Michael
Page, Richard


Fearn, Ronnie
Paterson, Owen


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Pickles, Eric


Foster, Don (Bath)
Randall, John


Fraser, Christopher
Rendel, David





Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Thompson, William


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Ruffley, David
Tredinnick, David


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Tyler, Paul


St Aubyn, Nick
Tyrie, Andrew


Salmond, Alex
Wardle, Charles


Sanders, Adrian
Webb, Steve


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Welsh, Andrew


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Wilkinson, John


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Willis, Phil


Spring, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Stunell, Andrew
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Swayne, Desmond
Woodward, Shaun


Swinney, John



Syms, Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Mr. David Wilshire and


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lord amendment disagreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 93, in page 88, line 4, leave out (", 71")

Motion made, and question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 91.

Division No. 291]
[12.53 am


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cawsey, Ian


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Ainger, Nick
Chaytor, David


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Church, Ms Judith


Alexander, Douglas
Clapham, Michael


Allen, Graham
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Austin, John
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Barnes, Harry
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Barron, Kevin
Clelland, David


Battle, John
Clwyd, Ann


Bayley, Hugh
Coaker, Vernon


Beard, Nigel
Coffey, Ms Ann


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Coleman, Iain


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Colman, Tony


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bennett, Andrew F
Corston, Ms Jean


Benton, Joe
Cousins, Jim


Bermingham, Gerald
Cranston, Ross


Berry, Roger
Crausby, David


Best, Harold
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Betts, Clive
Cummings, John


Blackman, Liz
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Blizzard, Bob
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Boateng, Paul
Dalyell, Tam


Borrow, David
Darting, Rt Hon Alistair


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Davidson, Ian


Bradshaw, Ben
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Dawson, Hilton


Browne, Desmond
Dismore, Andrew


Buck, Ms Karen
Dobbin, Jim


Burden, Richard
Donohoe, Brian H


Burgon, Colin
Doran, Frank


Butler, Mrs Christine
Drew, David


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Edwards, Huw


Caplin, Ivor
Efford, Clive


Caton, Martin
Ellman, Mrs Louise






Ennis, Jeff
McAvoy, Thomas


Etherington, Bill
McCabe, Steve


Fisher, Mark
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Flint, Caroline
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Flynn, Paul



Follett, Barbara
McDonagh, Siobhain


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Macdonald, Calum


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McDonnell, John


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Gapes, Mike
McIsaac, Shona


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Gerrard, Neil
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gibson, Dr Ian
McNulty, Tony


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
MacShane, Denis


Godsiff, Roger
Mactaggart, Fiona


Goggins, Paul
McWalter, Tony


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mallaber, Judy


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Grogan, John
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Martlew, Eric


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Maxton, John


Hanson, David
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Meale, Alan


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Merron, Gillian


Healey, John
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Miller, Andrew


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Moffatt, Laura


Hepburn, Stephen
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Heppell, John
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hesford, Stephen
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hill, Keith
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hinchliffe, David
Morley, Elliot


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hoey, Kate
Mountford, Kali


Hood, Jimmy
Mudie, George


Hope, Phil
Mullin, Chris


Hopkins, Kelvin
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Norris, Dan


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Humble, Mrs Joan
O'Hara, Eddie


Hurst, Alan
Olner, Bill


Iddon, Dr Brian
O'Neill, Martin


Illsley, Eric
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jamieson, David
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jenkins, Brian
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Pendry, Tom


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Plaskitt, James


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Pollard, Kerry


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pond, Chris


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pope, Greg


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pound, Stephen


Kemp, Fraser
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Khabra, Piara S
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kidney, David
Primarolo, Dawn


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Prosser, Gwyn


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Purchase, Ken


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Quinn, Lawrie


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Rammell, Bill


Laxton, Bob
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Lepper, David
Rooker, Jeff


Leslie, Christopher
Rooney, Terry


Levitt, Tom
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rowlands, Ted


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Roy, Frank


Linton, Martin
Ruane, Chris


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Ruddock, Joan





Ryan, Ms Joan
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Sarwar, Mohammad
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Savidge, Malcolm
Timms, Stephen


Sawford, Phil
Tipping, Paddy


Sedgemore, Brian
Todd, Mark


Shaw, Jonathan
Touhig, Don


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Trickett, Jon


Shipley, Ms Debra
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Singh, Marsha
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Skinner, Dennis
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Tynan, Bill


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Walley, Ms Joan



Ward, Ms Claire


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
watts, David


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
White, Brian



Whitehead, Dr Alan


Snape, Peter
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Soley, Clive



Squire, Ms Rachel
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Steinberg, Gerry
Wills, Michael


Stevenson, George
Winnick, David


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wise, Audrey


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wood, Mike


Stoate, Dr Howard
Woolas, Phil


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Worthington, Tony


Stringer, Graham
Wray, James


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wyatt, Derek


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Mr. Mike Hall and


Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. Jim Dowd.




NOES


Allan, Richard
Heald, Oliver


Amess, David
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Baker, Norman
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Ballard, Jackie
Keetch, Paul


Beggs, Roy
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Blunt, Crispin
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Brake, Tom
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Brand, Dr Peter
Leigh, Edward


Breed, Colin
Letwin, Oliver


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Burnett, John
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Burstow, Paul
Livsey, Richard


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Llwyd, Elfyn



Loughton, Tim


Chidgey, David
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Chope, Christopher
McLoughlin, Patrick


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Moore, Michael


Cotter, Brian
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Cran, James
Öpik, Lembit


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Page, Richard


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Paterson, Owen


Day, Stephen
Pickles, Eric


Evans, Nigel
Randall, John


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Rendel, David


Fabricant, Michael
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Fearn, Ronnie
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Ruffley, David


Foster, Don (Bath)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
St Aubyn, Nick


Gibb, Nick
Salmond, Alex


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Sanders, Adrian


Gorrie, Donald
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gray, James
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Grieve, Dominic
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hancock, Mike
Spring, Richard


Harris, Dr Evan
Stunell, Andrew


Harvey, Nick
Swayne, Desmond






Swinney, John
Welsh, Andrew


Syms, Robert
Wilkinson, John


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Willis, Phil


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Thompson, William
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Tonge, Dr Jenny
Woodward, Shaun


Tredinnick, David



Tyler, Paul
Tellers for the Noes:


Tyrie, Andrew
Mr. David Wilshire and


Webb, Steve
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 55 to 84, 86 to 92, and 94 to 191 agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put,
That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments Nos. 3, 20, 46, 85 and 93; that Mr. Richard Burden, Mr. Kevin Hughes, Mrs. Eleanor Laing, Mr. Eric Pickles and Mr. Jeff Rooker be members of the Committee; that Mr. Jeff Rooker be Chairman of the Committee; that Three be the quorum of the Committee; and that the Committee do withdraw immediately.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

The House divided: Ayes 297, Noes 76.

Division No. 292]
[1.7 am


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Chaytor, David


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Clapham, Michael


Ainger, Nick
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Alexander, Douglas
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Allen, Graham
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clelland, David


Austin, John
Clwyd, Ann


Barnes, Harry
Coaker, Vernon


Barron, Kevin
Coffey, Ms Ann


Battle, John
Coleman, Iain


Bayley, Hugh
Colman, Tony


Beard, Nigel
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Corston, Ms Jean


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cousins, Jim


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Cranston, Ross


Bennett, Andrew F
Crausby, David


Benton, Joe
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Bermingham, Gerald
Cummings, John


Berry, Roger
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Best, Harold
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Betts, Clive
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Blackman, Liz
Dalyell, Tam


Blears, Ms Hazel
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Blizzard, Bob
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Boateng, Paul
Davidson, Ian


Borrow, David
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Dawson, Hilton


Bradshaw, Ben
Dismore, Andrew


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Dobbin, Jim


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Donohoe, Brian H


Browne, Desmond
Doran, Frank


Buck, Ms Karen
Drew, David


Burden, Richard
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Burgon, Colin
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Edwards, Huw


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Efford, Clive


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Ennis, Jeff


Caplin, Ivor
Etherington, Bill


Caton, Martin
Fisher, Mark


Cawsey, Ian
Flynn, Paul


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Follett, Barbara





Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McDonagh, Siobhain


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Maodonald, Calum


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McDonnell, John


Gapes, Mike
McGuire, Mrs Anne


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McIsaac, Shona


Gerrard, Neil
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Gibson, Dr Ian
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McNulty, Tony


Godsiff, Roger
MacShane, Denis


Goggins, Paul
Mactaggart, Fiona


Golding, Mrs Llin
McWalter, Tony


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Mallaber, Judy


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)



Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Grogan, John
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Martlew, Eric


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Maxton, John


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Meale, Alan


Healey, John
Merron, Gillian


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Miller, Andrew


Hepburn, Stephen
Moffatt, Laura


Heppell, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hesford, Stephen
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hill, Keith
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hinchliffe, David
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Morley, Elliot


Hoey, Kate
Mountford, Kali


Hood, Jimmy
Mudie, George


Hope, Phil
Mullin, Chris


Hopkins, Kelvin
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Norris, Dan


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)



O'Hara Eddie


Humble, Mrs Joan
Olner, Bill


Hurst, Alan
O'Neill, Martin


Iddon, Dr Brian
Organ, Mrs Diana


Illsley, Eric
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jamieson, David
Pearson, Ian


Jenkins, Brian
Pendry, Tom


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pollard, Kerry


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Pond, Chris


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pope, Greg


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pound, Stephen


Kemp, Fraser
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Khabra, Piara S
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kidney, David
Prosser, Gwyn


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Purchase, Ken


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Quinn, Lawrie


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Rammell, Bill


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Laxton, Bob
Rooker, Jeff


Lepper, David
Rooney, Terry


Leslie, Christopher
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)



Rowlands, Ted


Levitt, Tom
Roy, Frank


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Ruane, Chris


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Ruddock, Joan


Linton, Martin
Ryan, Ms Joan


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Salmond, Alex


McAvoy, Thomas
Sarwar, Mohammad


McCabe, Steve
Savidge, Malcolm


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Sawford, Phil


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Sedgemore, Brian



Shaw, Jonathan






Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Todd, Mark


Shipley, Ms Debra
Touhig, Don


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Trickett, Jon


Singh, Marsha
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Skinner, Dennis
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)



Tynan, Bill


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Walley, Ms Joan


Snape, Peter
Ward, Ms Claire


Soley, Clive
Watts, David


Squire, Ms Rachel
Welsh, Andrew


Starkey, Dr Phyllis Yr
White, Brian


Steinberg, Gerry
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Stevenson, George
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Stewart, David (Inverness E)



Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stinchcombe, Paul
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Stoate, Dr Howard
Wills, Michael


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Winnick, David


Stringer, Graham
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wise, Audrey


Swinney, John
Wood, Mike


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Woolas, Phil



Worthington, Tony


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Wray, James


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wyatt, Derek


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)



Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Timms, Stephen
Mr. Jim Dowd and


Tipping, Paddy
Mr. Mike Hall.




NOES


Allan, Richard
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Amess, David
Keetch, Paul


Baker, Norman
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Ballard, Jackie
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Beggs, Roy
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Blunt, Crispin
Leigh, Edward


Brake, Tom
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Brand, Dr Peter
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Breed, Colin
Livsey, Richard


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Burnett, John
Loughton, Tim


Burstow, Paul
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
McLoughlin, Patrick



Moore, Michael


Chidgey, David
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Chope, Christopher
Öpik, Lembit


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Page, Richard


Cotter, Brian
Paterson, Owen


Cran, James
Pickles, Eric


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Rendel, David


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Day, Stephen
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Evans, Nigel
Ruffley, David


Fabricant, Michael
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Fearn, Ronnie
St Aubyn, Nick


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Sanders, Adrian


Foster, Don (Bath)
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Gorrie, Donald
Spring, Richard


Gray, James
Stunell, Andrew


Grieve, Dominic
Swayne, Desmond


Hancock, Mike
Syms, Robert


Heald, Oliver
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Tredinnick, David





Tyler, Paul
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)



Woodward, Shaun


Tyrie, Andrew



Webb, Steve
Tellers for the Noes:


Wilkinson, John
Mr. David Wilshire and


Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. After nearly two decades in this place, may I ask you please explain how, after a vote on the composition of the Committee, those who voted against its proposed composition can serve on it? [Interruption.] I hear a noise on my right, but it is of no consequence.
I ask for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. How can traditions be so abused by a stupid vote?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In these circumstances, Members are bound by the decision of the House. That is quite routine.

Mr. Bermingham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already dealt with the point of order.

Mr. Bermingham: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Bermingham: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must sit down when I am on my feet. I have dealt with the point of order. What the hon. Gentleman has done is the wrong way of dealing with these matters, and we shall now move on to the next business.

COMMITTEES

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to Committees.

Ordered,

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

That Mrs. Barbara Roche be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. Stephen Timms be added to the Committee.

That Mr. Robert Maclennan be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. David Rendel be added to the Committee.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND PRIVILEGES

That Mr. Charles Kennedy be discharged from the Committee on Standards and Privileges and Mr. Malcolm Bruce be added to the Committee.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Future of Rugby League

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Mr. David Hinchliffe: Let me begin by expressing my gratitude for the opportunity to initiate the debate, and my appreciation to colleagues who have remained in the Chamber until this late hour owing to their concerns about certain issues relating to rugby league. I know that many of them—my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn), for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best) and for Halton (Mr. Twigg)—hope to make brief contributions later.
Let me begin by declaring certain relevant interests. I hold 500 shares in Wakefield Trinity rugby league football club; I also chair the league's professional players consultative committee, which negotiates between the professional clubs and the players' union. The post is not remunerated, and pays no expenses. I am secretary of the all-party rugby league group, which has about 80 members from the House and another place.
I welcome the Minister to her new post. She has my personal good wishes for the work that she will do. I know that she has a great passion for sport of all types. She has been a member of the all-party rugby league group and, in 1995, participated in the previous debate on the subject, so she is aware of the background to many of the issues about which we are concerned. I believe that this is her debut on the Front Bench in her new position. She could not make it on a more important issue, as I am sure she appreciates.
The title of the debate implies some doubt and questions about rugby league's future. I want to express a personal view. The sport, in both an amateur and professional sense, has a positive future. I will express no doubts about its future. I have concerns merely over the implications of rugby league's administrative structure, particularly the controversies over the merger of certain professional clubs.
In stressing the positives, I recall that, in 1995, when the announcement was made in Paris that rugby union had gone openly professional, Ian Robertson, the BBC's "rugby"—that is, union—correspondent, implied that it signalled the end of rugby league—that it had no future.
Several years on, we see the contrasting fortunes of professional rugby union and professional rugby league. Those of us in rugby league believe that the league game has proved its supremacy and will continue to do so over the years. Certainly, attendances at professional rugby league matches are far higher than at equivalent professional rugby union matches. Therefore, we can stress many positives. This season, attendances at several league matches topped 20,000.

Mr. Colin Burgon: Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity, even though he comes from Wakefield, to commend Castleford Tigers, a small-town club with average attendances of 6,000-plus? Does he agree that the

club's community-based approach shows the way forward for rugby league? In his much-valued opinion, what can the game learn from "classy Cas"?

Mr. Hinchliffe: Although they have had a successful season, Castleford were beaten by Wakefield Trinity, but I pay tribute to Castleford's work. I stress my hon. Friend's point: rugby league is essentially a community sport. Clubs such as Castleford are rooted in the local community and have been successful as a consequence of their connections with that community. In the context of mergers, links with the local community are crucial, as my hon. Friend has said.
Let me make one or two other positive points on the future of rugby league. The amateur game has spread throughout the country since the barriers in relation to union were lifted. The summer conference league, which has existed for the past two years, has spread like wildfire across central and southern England. Clubs are queueing up to join the league. Players who have played only union have not had the opportunity to taste the great game of rugby league. That expansion throughout the country is encouraging.
The game is expanding in the armed forces. It was banned in the forces until 1994; a campaign in this place lifted that ban. The armed forces rugby league is growing.
On the issue of bans, I draw hon. Members' attention to early-day motion 972, which is in my name and deals with the position in France during the second world war, when rugby league was banned in disgraceful circumstances. The sport operates against a background of some vindictive treatment, especially from rugby union in recent times.
The game is expanding in colleges and universities. I stress that there is far more female involvement in rugby league. When I go to matches as a spectator, certainly super league matches, I reckon that, on average, about 50 per cent. of spectators at many of the clubs are female. Now, vast numbers of women are playing rugby league, enjoying a great game that I have enjoyed over many years. Rugby league's future looks very positive.
I should like to deal in this debate primarily with current proposals, some of which have been formally agreed, on the merger of some professional super league clubs. My hon. Friends and I are here today primarily to voice the concerns of rugby league fans in the communities that we represent about the proposals.
One element in the controversy over the club mergers is the difficult financial position of some of the clubs. Player costs were certainly inflated by the initial professionalisation of union, in 1995. Although it is easy to criticise those who are involved in pushing for the merger of clubs, I appreciate that many business people and individuals with a commitment to the game have spent great sums keeping clubs afloat.
Additionally, super league clubs have been receiving less from Sky Television. Consequently, super league clubs have developed an agenda to reduce their number, from 14 to 12. As a further consequence, this year, £1.25 million was made available to clubs that were prepared to merge.
The key issue—I hope that the Minister will address it today—in the proposed mergers is the way in which, in the past few years, three separate administrative arms


have developed in professional rugby league. The first is Rugby Football League, which is the game's constitutional governing body, comprising all the professional rugby league clubs.
The second is super league Europe, which was introduced after the 1995 introduction of super league. Originally, super league Europe was simply a marketing arm of super league, but now has its own headquarters, chairman and chief executive.
The third is the Association of Northern Ford Premiership Clubs, effectively comprising the old first division.
The problem with the current proposals have been caused by the division of responsibilities between those three bodies. Currently, there is a proposal to merge the Huddersfield Giants and the Sheffield Eagles. I should say that I have a constituency interest in the Huddersfield Giants because my constituency includes two Kirklees wards containing significant numbers of Giants supporters. The Giants are based, of course, in the town where the game was founded, in 1895. It is one of the greatest teams in the history of rugby league.
The Sheffield team was established only 15 years ago, in virgin territory. However, it has done excellent development work and—less than two years ago, in 1998—won the challenge cup.
We also have proposals to merge the Hull and Gateshead teams. Hull has another of the greatest teams in rugby league. Its recent demise seems to coincide with the involvement of the tennis player David Lloyd—who has recently bought shares in the Gateshead side, thereby driving forward the merger between the two clubs. Last season, Gateshead was admitted to super league as a new franchise.
Another piece of the jigsaw that will concern my hon. Friends who have attended this debate is that, next season, a new Sheffield club may be admitted to the premiership. Mark Aston—the former Sheffield Eagles player—is proposing admission of the team, entailing the possibility of a team dropping down to the premiership and competing there. However, that will depend on the agreement of the premiership clubs, which have an organisation and constitution separate from those of super league.
Another factor is the position of the Hunslet Hawks—my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) may want to mention that team—which won the Northern Four premiership. The team is not quite sure whether it will be in super league or in the Northern Four premiership. Ultimately, however, its position will depend on whether Hull drops out of super league.
The situation is complex. Thousands of rugby league fans are baffled and angry about what is happening to their much-loved local sides. I want to stress the connection between rugby league teams and the local community, because it is essentially a community game. More than any sport that I know, rugby league is rooted in local communities and is part and parcel of them, particularly in the north of England.
Many professional players do not know whether they have a job for next season. Some clubs have reneged on their contract because the club has been contracted to

disappear. They do not know whether they have a living. I am concerned about their circumstances. The situation does not reflect well on the game.
I want to conclude in time to give some of my hon. Friends a chance to have a brief say in the debate. The heart of the problem with the current mergers is the administrative split between the key elements of the sport. It is crucial that professional rugby league should get back to one coherent whole under its constitutional body, the Rugby Football League. The Government have a role to play in assisting the process and I look forward to the support of my hon. Friend the Minister in bringing that about.

Mr. Derek Twigg: My constituency covers Widnes, which has one of the most famous rugby league clubs in the history of the game. They were world champions as recently as 10 years ago. The club had a difficult period a few years ago and did not make the transition to the super league because of an arbitrary decision on which teams would be included. There is some bad feeling about the exclusion from the super league of one of the most successful teams in the history of the game.
After going through a difficult time with many problems, the club has a new stadium that is probably second to none and meets all the criteria for the super league. The club has a new financial structure, new management and a team that is starting to become more successful. However, the management structure of the super league and rugby league generally causes confusion about who makes decisions and who supports who.
Widnes has submitted a bid for super league status, but we are not yet sure about the outcome of the bid. We understand that the independent body that is considering it has said that Widnes meets all the criteria, but we are still waiting for a decision. We shall hear about Hunslet later. The problems there also show complications in the management of the game.
My hon. Friend the Minister cannot interfere with the running of the game, but I should like her to bear it in mind that if our teams are to compete against the best in the world from Australia and New Zealand, we need to look closely at what has happened. The change in organisation that has concentrated most of the money in a smaller number of clubs has not produced a national side capable of matching Australia or New Zealand. In the two matches in recent weeks the Great Britain side did very badly. The new structures have not improved standards in the game.
Widnes is getting better gates than many super league sides and has further potential to increase its crowds. There are very few super league clubs on the west of the Pennines. Most of them are in Yorkshire. Widnes could increase gates and interest and bring added value and benefit to the game, but the club seems to be kept out.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) has said, rugby league is a community game. It cannot be taken away from the community. Various bids have come from historically non-rugby league areas and have not succeeded.
The classic example is the idea that Gateshead and Hull should merge, as Gateshead only came into the super league last year and have done reasonably well. There has


been talk of Welsh and Scottish teams coming into rugby league, while Widnes—from a traditional rugby league area, with the support and the facilities—has been denied the opportunity to get into the super league.
We need a complete review of how the game is organised, and a review of whether the organisation is delivering in terms of the quality of rugby league, while meeting the needs of the communities that want to take part in the game.

Mr. Harold Best: Most of the things that I might have said about the organisational problems of rugby league have been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe).
I want to emphasise the community nature of the game, which produced a competitive spirit that enabled communities to bond around workplaces, hotels and schools. It is a natural, organic game, which is at once divisive and unifying.
I speak with a lot of personal experience—I am a former rugby league player. I played to a fairly good level, and I enjoyed the game enormously. I learned the game when I was at school and, throughout that period, it was strictly amateur. I will never forget playing for Leeds city schoolboys and being advised by a teacher—a Mr. Hepworth—that we should beware of the money that was in rugby league. I did not understand what he meant, and I thought it was something to do with his enthusiasm for rugby union and the amateur game which he had played some years ago. Now I think I understand what he meant.
The influence that money can have upon a community sport can be devastating. The drive in sport should be that which comes naturally from the community need expressing itself. I live right outside the ground of Leeds rugby league club. I live on St. Michael's lane, which is the front for the Yorkshire county cricket ground and the Leeds rugby league ground. I watch fans from all clubs corning to play there. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield says, at least 50 per cent. are women. It seems to me that women are the growing force in rugby league support.
It is not just women—I see children hand in hand, wearing different club scarves and mingling, and there is no hostility whatever. The sport brings peace and enthusiasm to a community and gives notions of team spirit and high-quality performances. That is what rugby league has been about.
Regrettably, in very recent times, we have seen the new side emerging—takeovers and the manipulation of the ownership of the game and the grounds on which it is played. I am sorry to say that that kind of competitive spirit has little or nothing to do with the game itself.
Anything that the Minister might say tonight to assist those inside the game who are seeking to restore its honourable and sporting competitive tradition would be extremely welcome. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) will have an opportunity to speak, and I remember playing against the club in the heart of his constituency, Hunslet, as an amateur. It was the first time I heard their song, which went:
We swept the seas before, boys, and we'll sweep the seas again.

I am looking forward to that song being sung by Hunslet fans in the new super league.

Mr. Hilary Benn: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on having secured this debate. I want to draw attention to the position of the Hunslet Hawks rugby league club. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best) said, the name Hunslet has long been connected with rugby league. The club has a proud history. The board of directors is forward looking and there is a committed supporter base in south Leeds. In the last season, a very fine team took the Northern Ford Premiership title by winning the very last game of the season. It swept the seas, as we have heard.
The club was thus entitled to seek promotion to the super league and it put in an application, but it has been turned down by the franchise panel, ostensibly because its otherwise excellent South Leeds stadium does not have the required capacity. In close consultation with the city council, the club made proposals that would immediately—in time for the start of the next season—increase capacity from 2,500 to 5,500, with an increase to 10,000, which is the requirement of the super league, to follow.
Apparently, that was not good enough. The club then offered to play temporarily at other grounds that met the capacity requirement, but that was also turned down. It is not surprising that many supporters feel that whatever the club offers will not be good enough. Many supporters feel great disappointment and frustration because, having earned the right to show what it could do in the super league, the club is being denied the opportunity. Even at this late stage, I would hope that the rugby football league could reconsider the decision.

The Minister for Sport (Kate Hoey): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and all my hon. Friends who have spoken. It is a tribute to the support that they have given to rugby league in their constituencies that so many of them have turned up to contribute and listen to the debate tonight.
I am very familiar with the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield has done in promoting rugby league in this place. The professionalism of the all-party rugby league group is a credit to all those involved. I am very pleased that it was one of the first groups to congratulate me on my new post and invite me to address it.
Rugby league has a long and distinguished past and I hope that it has a future to match. It is one of the many sports that this country has given to the world and now finds it increasingly difficult to compete in successfully at international level. The sport is deeply rooted in the community that it serves and from which it originates. All sport needs to remember where it has come from, because if it forgets its roots and goes for short-termism, it will begin to decline.
All of us here tonight have agreed that it is important to protect the game's long-term interests and that money alone will not make it successful. Next year, rugby football league will play host to a reconstituted rugby


league world cup, and the Government will support it strongly, with funding from UK Sport's major events budget; the decision on the exact amount will be made in the next few months. It is important for such major events to come here, as they will give an excellent opportunity to increase the sport's appeal.
The Government are committed to supporting all sports. We are especially keen to promote sport, including rugby league, in schools. I welcome all the initiatives aimed at encouraging more youngsters to participate. I saw the excellent work being done at St. John Fisher school in Wigan to help youngsters in sport. We will work with whatever structures are in place for the organisation of a sport. As my hon. Friends have said, it is ultimately for the sport to decide how best to organise, but it must do so in the best interests of the game as a whole. I would welcome moves to streamline organisation, as long as all levels in the sport are catered for.
I am fully aware of, and understand, the strength of feeling that has been generated by the recent merger proposals. That has been mentioned tonight, and I have received much correspondence on the subject. I have also met Neil Tunnicliffe, the chief executive of the Rugby Football League. My plea to the league and to the clubs would be to canvass the views of supporters when the mergers are discussed. The clubs cannot take the support of supporters for mergers for granted. The clubs have to listen to supporters and examine their plans carefully. If mergers take place without both clubs' supporters' support, the danger is that the merged club will not work, no matter how much financial support it receives. I am keen to ensure that the Government work with rugby league to listen to what local communities are saying.
The future of rugby league is bright, and large amounts of money are available for the game at grassroots level and at the elite level, including through

the world-class performance grants. Direct grant-in-aid funding to the Amateur Rugby League Association of £250,000 will fund development officers and improve the women's game—my hon. Friends have mentioned the many more women who are involved, and I welcome that. More money will go into world-class performance grants, including a £170,000 interim lottery award to provide training and expertise for top-class players.
The issues that have been raised tonight parallel other issues in rugby union and other sports. They are complex and, in these days of professionalism, sponsorship and money, will cause concern in local communities. Professional rugby league clubs compete in a competitive, commercial environment. Recent innovations, such as ground sharing with football clubs—for example, in Wigan—have helped to lighten the load on some clubs, but without a firm financial foundation, clubs will always struggle.
The increase in funding for the game brought about by the television deal with BSkyB has helped several clubs, but it is questionable how much benefit it has brought to the sport as a whole, with much of the increase being eaten up by the increases in salaries for the top players. That is a real dilemma for sport, and sport itself must determine it, because it is important not to take the short-term view.
I look forward to the results of the inquiry undertaken by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport into the future of professional rugby in both codes. I hope that it will add significantly to the debate on all aspects of both sports and specifically provide some guidance to rugby league on the way forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Two o 'clock.